If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Political Blind Spot)   Steubenville hacker faces 10 years in prison, Steubenville rapist is already out of juvenile detention   (politicalblindspot.com) divider line 196
    More: Followup, Steubenville, juvenile detention, rapists, convicts, Deric Lostutter, Steubenville High School  
•       •       •

8729 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jan 2014 at 10:29 AM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



196 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-14 08:46:18 AM
I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.
 
2014-01-14 09:07:09 AM

Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.


You can do better than this to get attention, can't you?
 
2014-01-14 09:16:52 AM
I think if they really tried, they could have shoehorned more ads to break up the copy on that story. There actually were some spots where there were two or three paragraphs together!
 
2014-01-14 09:30:48 AM

Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.


And if America is good at anything, it's creating criminals out of thin air.
 
2014-01-14 09:36:16 AM

Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.


Well bless your heart.
 
2014-01-14 09:48:00 AM
The hacker was over 18 and the rapist was under 18.  18 is the magical line of responsibility for your actions.
 
2014-01-14 09:50:02 AM

EyeballKid: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

You can do better than this to get attention, can't you?


Would he have been guilty if he hadn't found evidence?
 
2014-01-14 09:53:12 AM

James!: The hacker was over 18 and the rapist was under 18.  18 is the magical line of responsibility for your actions.


Except in states where they can involve juvenile transfer to move bad boys to big boy court.
 
2014-01-14 09:56:36 AM
I think something crawled up Lucky's ass last week and died and the petrifaction is causing his brain to hemorrhage.

Or something.

James!: The hacker was over 18 and the rapist was under 18.  18 is the magical line of responsibility for your actions.


Have you watched PBS' Brains on Trial with Alan Alda?
 
2014-01-14 10:03:34 AM

EyeballKid: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

You can do better than this to get attention, can't you?


He really can't.
 
2014-01-14 10:04:36 AM

Nabb1: James!: The hacker was over 18 and the rapist was under 18.  18 is the magical line of responsibility for your actions.

Except in states where they can involve juvenile transfer to move bad boys to big boy court.


If that were possible here it probably should have been done.
 
2014-01-14 10:04:57 AM

CapeFearCadaver: I think something crawled up Lucky's ass last week and died and the petrifaction is causing his brain to hemorrhage.

Or something.

James!: The hacker was over 18 and the rapist was under 18.  18 is the magical line of responsibility for your actions.

Have you watched PBS' Brains on Trial with Alan Alda?


I have not, but I do like Alan Alda.
 
2014-01-14 10:07:44 AM

James!: I have not, but I do like Alan Alda.


It's about the levels of maturity in various brains and the processing that takes place with different people when assigning judgment or fault. Pretty fascinating, and your 'magical line' remark reminded me of it.
 
2014-01-14 10:19:15 AM
I'm wondering when the next hacker will go for the economic jugular and take out things like the towns finances or its retirement fund.

The number one rule with hackers is, don't piss off the ones you can't deal with.
 
2014-01-14 10:31:23 AM

Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.


I see your point he broke the law.  I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished but damn 10 years?  That is a case of the punishment not fitting the crime.
 
2014-01-14 10:32:00 AM

doglover: EyeballKid: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

You can do better than this to get attention, can't you?

He really can't.


You take things entirely too seriously.  How does this kid's fate - whether he walks away scott-free or goes to jail for the rest of his life - effect you in the slightest?
 
2014-01-14 10:33:56 AM

James!: The hacker was over 18 and the rapist was under 18.  18 is the magical line of responsibility for your actions.


Unless you're black.  Then you get tried as an adult because you're such a risk to society.
 
2014-01-14 10:34:54 AM

ReverendJasen: James!: The hacker was over 18 and the rapist was under 18.  18 is the magical line of responsibility for your actions.

Unless you're black.  Then you get tried as an adult because you're such a risk to society.


Irony.

I like it.
 
2014-01-14 10:35:14 AM

Lucky LaRue: doglover: EyeballKid: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

You can do better than this to get attention, can't you?

He really can't.

You take things entirely too seriously.  How does this kid's fate - whether he walks away scott-free or goes to jail for the rest of his life - effect you in the slightest?


There are lots of things people have the ability to care about that don't necessarily affect them. It's called 'empathy'.
 
2014-01-14 10:35:35 AM

Lucky LaRue: You take things entirely too seriously.


Trolling is an art.

You have to practice.
 
2014-01-14 10:36:11 AM
Ah. Ma'Lik Richmond. Rapist from Steubenville, Ohio whom should have been tried as an adult.
 
2014-01-14 10:36:14 AM

Lucky LaRue: doglover: EyeballKid: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

You can do better than this to get attention, can't you?

He really can't.

You take things entirely too seriously.  How does this kid's fate - whether he walks away scott-free or goes to jail for the rest of his life - effect you in the slightest?


Miscarriages of justice affect all of us.
 
2014-01-14 10:36:21 AM

html_007: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

I see your point he broke the law.  I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished but damn 10 years?  That is a case of the punishment not fitting the crime.


Maybe, but I wonder if we (collectively) would say the same thing about the people that hacked Target and exposed the financial/personal information of 70 million people.  Do they deserve something less than 10 years?  The difference here is not in the crime, but in the outcome.  I am not particularly interested in having a body of laws that differentiates on outcome - if the judge chooses to do that, then fine, but let's keep the laws fair and balanced.
 
2014-01-14 10:36:33 AM

doglover: Lucky LaRue: You take things entirely too seriously.

Trolling is an art.

You have to practice.


He's only been trying his hand at it for about a week. Give him more time....
 
2014-01-14 10:36:43 AM
Fine, Society! Let's see you get back to the Moon when you've jailed all the smart kids and let the jocks rule over everything.
 
2014-01-14 10:37:05 AM

doglover: Lucky LaRue: You take things entirely too seriously.

Trolling is a art.

You have to practice.


Fixed that for you.
 
2014-01-14 10:37:29 AM

James!: The hacker was over 18 and the rapist was under 18.  18 is the magical line of responsibility for your actions.


Just like it's the magical line of having your rights respected.
 
2014-01-14 10:38:28 AM

CapeFearCadaver: doglover: Lucky LaRue: You take things entirely too seriously.

Trolling is an art.

You have to practice.

He's only been trying his hand at it for about a week. Give him more time....


Oh, I don't know.  I think I may have a natural aptitude for it.
 
2014-01-14 10:38:36 AM
We are Anonymous, we are....

We are Slightly Anonymous, we are legion.


Fixed for accuracy.
 
2014-01-14 10:38:38 AM

ReverendJasen: James!: The hacker was over 18 and the rapist was under 18.  18 is the magical line of responsibility for your actions.

Unless you're black.  Then you get tried as an adult because you're such a risk to society.


Unless you're a star football player.
 
2014-01-14 10:38:57 AM

Lucky LaRue: html_007: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

I see your point he broke the law.  I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished but damn 10 years?  That is a case of the punishment not fitting the crime.

Maybe, but I wonder if we (collectively) would say the same thing about the people that hacked Target and exposed the financial/personal information of 70 million people.  Do they deserve something less than 10 years?  The difference here is not in the crime, but in the outcome.  I am not particularly interested in having a body of laws that differentiates on outcome - if the judge chooses to do that, then fine, but let's keep the laws fair and balanced.


There's a huge difference in hacking into texts and pictures and hacking into financial information
 
2014-01-14 10:39:42 AM

CapeFearCadaver: Have you watched PBS' Brains on Trial with Alan Alda?


I preferred "Alan Alda on Trial with PBS's Brains".
 
2014-01-14 10:40:06 AM

Nabb1: James!: The hacker was over 18 and the rapist was under 18.  18 is the magical line of responsibility for your actions.

Except in states where they can involve juvenile transfer to move bad boys to big boy court.


That can be done in Ohio, and often is...

Unless you're a hick town in Appalachia, and the offender in question is a football star. Then, the prosecutor sticks his fingers in his ears. If that had been in Columbus, that kid would have done hard time like he should have. Instead, they're slut shaming the victim and high giving the perp.
 
2014-01-14 10:40:38 AM
Remember:

If you steal evidence it can't be used in court.
 
2014-01-14 10:41:17 AM

James!: The hacker was over 18 and the rapist was under 18.  18 is the magical line of responsibility for your actions.


"You heartless dickwads want to throw children in jail!  CHILDREN!!!"
 
2014-01-14 10:41:29 AM

QueenMamaBee: Lucky LaRue: html_007: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

I see your point he broke the law.  I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished but damn 10 years?  That is a case of the punishment not fitting the crime.

Maybe, but I wonder if we (collectively) would say the same thing about the people that hacked Target and exposed the financial/personal information of 70 million people.  Do they deserve something less than 10 years?  The difference here is not in the crime, but in the outcome.  I am not particularly interested in having a body of laws that differentiates on outcome - if the judge chooses to do that, then fine, but let's keep the laws fair and balanced.

There's a huge difference in hacking into texts and pictures and hacking into financial information



Or hacking into drunk vaginas.
 
2014-01-14 10:41:35 AM

alice_600: Remember:

If you steal evidence it can't be used in court.


Not really the case.

Unless the person is acting on behalf of the government when they illegally obtain the evidence, it can usually be used.
 
2014-01-14 10:42:14 AM

ChipNASA: doglover: Lucky LaRue: You take things entirely too seriously.

Trolling is a art.

You have to practice.

Fixed that for you.


Touche.
 
2014-01-14 10:42:27 AM
Hacker obviously doesn't play high school football.
 
2014-01-14 10:42:27 AM

QueenMamaBee: Lucky LaRue: html_007: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

I see your point he broke the law.  I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished but damn 10 years?  That is a case of the punishment not fitting the crime.

Maybe, but I wonder if we (collectively) would say the same thing about the people that hacked Target and exposed the financial/personal information of 70 million people.  Do they deserve something less than 10 years?  The difference here is not in the crime, but in the outcome.  I am not particularly interested in having a body of laws that differentiates on outcome - if the judge chooses to do that, then fine, but let's keep the laws fair and balanced.

There's a huge difference in hacking into texts and pictures and hacking into financial information


I dunno - I can easily imagine situation where hacking texts and pictures could be just as damaging as hacking financial information.  And, again, I think the place for making the differentiation on what is a "serious" breach of the law and what isn't belongs in the courtroom, with the judge.  Our laws are already insanely complex; I can't imagine what they would look like if we tried to spell out that differentiation in the code itself.
 
2014-01-14 10:42:59 AM

Lucky LaRue: Oh, I don't know. I think I may have a natural aptitude for it.


Not really. You're too nice and level headed as an actual person. So it's coming off as what you think assholishness is as opposed to trolling and while it does get you some green arrows there's no back bone there.
 
2014-01-14 10:43:19 AM

ReverendJasen: James!: The hacker was over 18 and the rapist was under 18.  18 is the magical line of responsibility for your actions.

Unless you're black.  Then you get tried as an adult because you're such a risk to society.


static2.businessinsider.com
 
2014-01-14 10:43:58 AM

CapeFearCadaver: Not really. You're too nice and level headed as an actual person.


YOU TAKE THAT BACK!
 
2014-01-14 10:44:35 AM

James!: Alan Alda


Jew or "not a jew"?
 
2014-01-14 10:44:43 AM

The Muthaship: alice_600: Remember:

If you steal evidence it can't be used in court.

Not really the case.

Unless the person is acting on behalf of the government when they illegally obtain the evidence, it can usually be used.


Still illegally obtained and can't be used. That's where Snowden farked himself.
 
2014-01-14 10:45:12 AM

Lucky LaRue: html_007: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

I see your point he broke the law.  I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished but damn 10 years?  That is a case of the punishment not fitting the crime.

Maybe, but I wonder if we (collectively) would say the same thing about the people that hacked Target and exposed the financial/personal information of 70 million people.  Do they deserve something less than 10 years?  The difference here is not in the crime, but in the outcome.  I am not particularly interested in having a body of laws that differentiates on outcome - if the judge chooses to do that, then fine, but let's keep the laws fair and balanced.


We have laws that differentiate between sentences if theft was over/under a certain value and then there's Grand Theft Auto just for car thieves. No one was making a huff about those laws.
 
2014-01-14 10:45:27 AM

Lucky LaRue: doglover: EyeballKid: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

You can do better than this to get attention, can't you?

He really can't.

You take things entirely too seriously.  How does this kid's fate - whether he walks away scott-free or goes to jail for the rest of his life - effect you in the slightest?


No one's taking you seriously sweets.

"Hey you know that outrageous miscarriage of justice that every single person recognises is a failure of the system - I'm going to be a contrarian twat about it. My life is great"

That is how they are 'taking you'.
 
2014-01-14 10:46:14 AM
Steubenville hacker faces up to 10 years in prison, Steubenville rapist is already out of juvenile detention

FTFS.

Sentencing guidelines; how do they motherfarking work?
 
2014-01-14 10:48:31 AM

alice_600: Still illegally obtained and can't be used


See Mapp v. Ohio and Burdeau v. McDowell.
 
2014-01-14 10:49:08 AM

Lucky LaRue: CapeFearCadaver: Not really. You're too nice and level headed as an actual person.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK!


NEVER! IT'S OUT THERE FOR THE WHOLE WORLD TO SEE!

Ok, fine.... You're a poopy head. Better?
 
2014-01-14 10:50:08 AM

pueblonative: Steubenville hacker faces up to 10 years in prison, Steubenville rapist is already out of juvenile detention

FTFS.

Sentencing guidelines; how do they motherfarking work?


Also he hasn't even been indicted yet has he?
 
2014-01-14 10:51:01 AM

Lucky LaRue: doglover: EyeballKid: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

You can do better than this to get attention, can't you?

He really can't.

You take things entirely too seriously.  How does this kid's fate - whether he walks away scott-free or goes to jail for the rest of his life - effect you in the slightest?


Wow. You get stupider and stupider as the thread goes on.
 
2014-01-14 10:51:17 AM

Target Builder: ReverendJasen: James!: The hacker was over 18 and the rapist was under 18.  18 is the magical line of responsibility for your actions.

Unless you're black.  Then you get tried as an adult because you're such a risk to society.

Unless you're a star football player.


Marcus Dixon disagrees

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Dixon
 
2014-01-14 10:53:32 AM

Speaker2Animals: I think if they really tried, they could have shoehorned more ads to break up the copy on that story. There actually were some spots where there were two or three paragraphs together!


You amuse me.
 
2014-01-14 10:54:02 AM

DubtodaIll: pueblonative: Steubenville hacker faces up to 10 years in prison, Steubenville rapist is already out of juvenile detention

FTFS.

Sentencing guidelines; how do they motherfarking work?

Also he hasn't even been indicted yet has he?


Nope.  Apparently his attention whoring has started to piss off anonymous for some odd reason.
 
2014-01-14 10:54:20 AM

Lucky LaRue: Maybe, but I wonder if we (collectively) would say the same thing about the people that hacked Target and exposed the financial/personal information of 70 million people.  Do they deserve something less than 10 years?  The difference here is not in the crime, but in the outcome.  I am not particularly interested in having a body of laws that differentiates on outcome - if the judge chooses to do that, then fine, but let's keep the laws fair and balanced.


I could take something back to Target and hand them my CC or a receipt and they would refund the card more than a decade ago.  I've played in the IT security game and to me that says they were keeping the whole credit card number.  That is a risk and now someone has played it.  The law doesn't apply when there are software errors.  Maybe they had their database encrypted but if you have the key to say "This is Sam's card, please encrypted it and put it in the database", you also have the key to decrypt it.  The only way not to lose the card to hackers in the long term is to not to store it.
 
2014-01-14 10:55:44 AM

Lucky LaRue: QueenMamaBee: Lucky LaRue: html_007: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

I see your point he broke the law.  I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished but damn 10 years?  That is a case of the punishment not fitting the crime.

Maybe, but I wonder if we (collectively) would say the same thing about the people that hacked Target and exposed the financial/personal information of 70 million people.  Do they deserve something less than 10 years?  The difference here is not in the crime, but in the outcome.  I am not particularly interested in having a body of laws that differentiates on outcome - if the judge chooses to do that, then fine, but let's keep the laws fair and balanced.

There's a huge difference in hacking into texts and pictures and hacking into financial information

I dunno - I can easily imagine situation where hacking texts and pictures could be just as damaging as hacking financial information.  And, again, I think the place for making the differentiation on what is a "serious" breach of the law and what isn't belongs in the courtroom, with the judge.  Our laws are already insanely complex; I can't imagine what they would look like if we tried to spell out that differentiation in the code itself.


We totally need a judge to determine if the social or legal damages done by this guy (aka exposing rapists and associates) is analagous to the financial damages done by completing your 2013 Christmas shopping at Target.
 
2014-01-14 10:56:52 AM

The Muthaship: alice_600: Still illegally obtained and can't be used

See Mapp v. Ohio and Burdeau v. McDowell.


See: law, modern.

Just because one trial went one way doesn't mean all trials will always go that way this is a case by case basis. Law is written and been solidified since Snowden because of Snowden.
 
2014-01-14 10:57:36 AM

Lucky LaRue: html_007: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

I see your point he broke the law.  I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished but damn 10 years?  That is a case of the punishment not fitting the crime.

Maybe, but I wonder if we (collectively) would say the same thing about the people that hacked Target and exposed the financial/personal information of 70 million people.  Do they deserve something less than 10 years?  The difference here is not in the crime, but in the outcome.  I am not particularly interested in having a body of laws that differentiates on outcome - if the judge chooses to do that, then fine, but let's keep the laws fair and balanced.


If we can't make a distinction between someone trying to expose a serious crime that is being covered up and bulk identity theft than we are no better than the idiotic zero tolerance school administrations that get so much love around here.

So if I attack someone who is actively raping another person my legal standing should be the same is if I was just trying to take their wallet?  Is that what you're suggesting?
 
2014-01-14 10:57:36 AM
Target has cc info. for 90 days only, then it's forever gone.

/worked the return desk for four years
 
2014-01-14 10:57:41 AM
That some of the rapists have gotten out as soon as they have is indeed a travesty, but does that absolve the hacker of his own crimes? I'm not so sure I can honestly say that it does.
 
2014-01-14 10:58:28 AM

alice_600: See: law, modern.


You have a cite that discusses this profound change to the exclusionary rule?

I can't find one, but I haven't practiced in 15 years....
 
2014-01-14 10:59:13 AM
What a Steubenville Court mike look like.

www.dba-oracle.com

"Now, y'see, yew kin git a little bit of that ole poonie, yessir, h'aint nothing
wrong with that, we just let that slide.  Silly girl shoulda knew better,ah
reckon, boys'll be boys an all, but yew done started messin around with
dang olecomputers and such and lemme tell ya whut, bwah, yer goin' ta JAIL!"
 
2014-01-14 10:59:18 AM

Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.


i.canvasugc.com
 
2014-01-14 10:59:22 AM

Millennium: That some of the rapists have gotten out as soon as they have is indeed a travesty, but does that absolve the hacker of his own crimes? I'm not so sure I can honestly say that it does.


I think he deserves a slap on the wrist...like a literal slap on the wrist.
 
2014-01-14 11:01:33 AM
The hacker should be covered under the whistle blowers exception because he uncovered a cover up by the school.
 
2014-01-14 11:03:24 AM

Gordon Bennett: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

[i.canvasugc.com image 607x800]


Just because you get replies doesn't mean you were a successful troll.
 
2014-01-14 11:03:39 AM

elysive: Millennium: That some of the rapists have gotten out as soon as they have is indeed a travesty, but does that absolve the hacker of his own crimes? I'm not so sure I can honestly say that it does.

I think he deserves a slap on the wrist...like a literal slap on the wrist.


Publicly.  There should be a big to-do.  Slap him in irons, haul him to the town square, bring out the state slapsecutioner (ideally the most feared nun at the local Catholic school), and in full sight of everyone... *thwack*.

You know, as a warning to others.
 
2014-01-14 11:04:03 AM
The Richomond family, following the release,which focused on how hard the past 16 months have been for MaLik

won't someone PLEASE think of the football players!
 
2014-01-14 11:04:45 AM

Thisbymaster: The hacker should be covered under the whistle blowers exception because he uncovered a cover up by the school.


And then he should have a farking parade.
 
2014-01-14 11:05:14 AM

CapeFearCadaver: I think something crawled up Lucky's ass last week and died and the petrifaction is causing his brain to hemorrhage.

Or something.

James!: The hacker was over 18 and the rapist was under 18.  18 is the magical line of responsibility for your actions.

Have you watched PBS' Brains on Trial with Alan Alda?


One presumes that there would actually have to be a brain present. Not the case here.
 
2014-01-14 11:05:39 AM
Yes and having an ounce of crack on your person will get you infinite more jail time than laundering hundreds of billions of dollars for terrorists and drug cartels.
 
2014-01-14 11:06:14 AM
Oh, there's this:

www.eff.org

...Because everything is 100x worse if you do it over computer. Now it surprises me that a Subenville person can use a computer, maybe it's just a sentence for witchcraft?

us.cdn2.123rf.com
 
2014-01-14 11:06:35 AM

The Muthaship: alice_600: See: law, modern.

You have a cite that discusses this profound change to the exclusionary rule?

I can't find one, but I haven't practiced in 15 years....


There is anecdotal evidence as to the prevalence of the "hey, meet me for lunch and we'll decide what's gonna happen here and f*ck what they want" rule, but I've never actually seen a meeting.
 
2014-01-14 11:06:37 AM

Lucky LaRue: html_007: Lucky LaRue:  I am not particularly interested in having a body of laws that differentiates on outcome - if the judge chooses to do that, then fine, but let's keep the laws fair and balanced.


By that "logic" a drunk driver who gets pulled over should face the same penalty as a drunk driver that causes a wreck that kills an infinite number of pretty white girls.  Outcomes matter in court because outcomes matter in real life.
 
2014-01-14 11:07:16 AM

Thisbymaster: The hacker should be covered under the whistle blowers exception because he uncovered a cover up by the school.


A few things: 1) Whistle blowers have to come from inside an organization and 2) Whistle blowers cannot break the law in the course of blowing the whistle.
 
2014-01-14 11:08:31 AM

Maud Dib: One presumes that there would actually have to be a brain present. Not the case here.


Alan Alda or Lucky?
 
2014-01-14 11:08:36 AM

Thisbymaster: The hacker should be covered under the whistle blowers exception because he uncovered a cover up by the school.


Okay, just point out the section of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act  that exempts AW "whistleblowers" who may not even have been on the original leak in the first place?
 
2014-01-14 11:08:51 AM

bunner: I've never actually seen a meeting.


Oh, I've been to several of those.....
 
2014-01-14 11:09:13 AM

Lost Thought 00: Yes and having an ounce of crack on your person will get you infinite more jail time than laundering hundreds of billions of dollars for terrorists and drug cartels.


Well, see, that crack money stays in the ghetto.  All that high finance stuff goes to the people who matter.  I'm pretty sure anything you do that moves more than 10,000,000.00 upchain is "legal".
 
2014-01-14 11:10:20 AM

The Muthaship: bunner: I've never actually seen a meeting.

Oh, I've been to several of those.....


And there it is.  Quod Erat Demonstratum
 
2014-01-14 11:12:26 AM

James!: The hacker was over 18 and the rapist was under 18.  18 is the magical line of responsibility for your actions.


18 is far from the magical line:    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/stats/states.h t ml
 
2014-01-14 11:12:41 AM
I have an idea.

Let's make a blanket "Don't be a sh*bag" law.

The metrics for infraction and prosecution will be arbitrated by a nice granny lady who makes pies and sweaters and grow roses.

It can't work any worse.
 
2014-01-14 11:14:03 AM

Thisbymaster: The hacker should be covered under the whistle blowers exception because he uncovered a cover up by the school.


I think the problem is that you don't know the definition of what a "whistleblower" is. He isn't a whistleblower.
 
2014-01-14 11:15:40 AM

The Muthaship: alice_600: Remember:

If you steal evidence it can't be used in court.

Not really the case.

Unless the person is acting on behalf of the government when they illegally obtain the evidence, it can usually be used.


I remember a fark story where a guy broke into a house to rob it and discovered evidence of a murder IIRC and gave it to the police.
 
2014-01-14 11:19:19 AM

groppet: The Muthaship: alice_600: Remember:

If you steal evidence it can't be used in court.

Not really the case.

Unless the person is acting on behalf of the government when they illegally obtain the evidence, it can usually be used.

I remember a fark story where a guy broke into a house to rob it and discovered evidence of a murder IIRC and gave it to the police.


And the government can say "He didn't act on our behalf,"
 
2014-01-14 11:19:45 AM
I got about 20 comments in before I threw in the potato and gave up.

/thnx for setting the tone, boobies (and I wasn't filter pwnd)
 
2014-01-14 11:20:44 AM
You kinda lose the anonymous bit when you tattoo the farking symbol on your forearm.  "Find the anonymous hacker in the room." "ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES!  Annnnnd done."

/Hacktivists are a joke
//Kinda like the people who participate in Middle East 'riot' threads and feel like they're helping by spamming unconfirmed tweets as fact
///And the media
 
2014-01-14 11:21:10 AM

Thisbymaster: The hacker should be covered under the whistle blowers exception because he uncovered a cover up by the school.


The whistleblower exception prevents exposure of data from being prosecuted, but obtaining data is another matter entirely. This latter is where the hacker committed a crime, and whistleblower laws won't save him there.

Nor should they, really. It's not worth it.
 
2014-01-14 11:21:35 AM

Lucky LaRue: doglover: EyeballKid: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

You can do better than this to get attention, can't you?

He really can't.

You take things entirely too seriously.  How does this kid's fate - whether he walks away scott-free or goes to jail for the rest of his life - effect you in the slightest?


You just disproved the idea that there are no stupid questions.
 
2014-01-14 11:22:59 AM

CapeFearCadaver: I think something crawled up Lucky's ass last week and died and the petrifaction is causing his brain to hemorrhage.

Or something.

James!: The hacker was over 18 and the rapist was under 18.  18 is the magical line of responsibility for your actions.

Have you watched PBS' Brains on Trial with Alan Alda?


His brain has been hemorrhaging since he created his account here. Lucky isn't just a troll, they're an incredibly uncreative one to boot.

/plonked it right away
 
2014-01-14 11:23:25 AM

Millennium: Nor should they, really. It's not worth it.


Yeah, couple of daft broads got taken around the block and dropped off crying.  Meh.  Gotta look out for the greater good.
 
2014-01-14 11:23:54 AM

Lucky LaRue: html_007: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

I see your point he broke the law.  I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished but damn 10 years?  That is a case of the punishment not fitting the crime.

Maybe, but I wonder if we (collectively) would say the same thing about the people that hacked Target and exposed the financial/personal information of 70 million people.  Do they deserve something less than 10 years?  The difference here is not in the crime, but in the outcome.  I am not particularly interested in having a body of laws that differentiates on outcome - if the judge chooses to do that, then fine, but let's keep the laws fair and balanced.


There definitely should be room for a judge when deciding a sentence.  I also understand the desire to send a strong message towards hackers, but what this guy did wasn't even malicious except possibly to a worse criminal than he is.

The Target hackers?  Throw the book at them.  Throw the whole goddammed library at them.

I think outcome as well as intent should be weighed carefully during sentencing.
 
2014-01-14 11:26:01 AM

alice_600: groppet: The Muthaship: alice_600: Remember:

If you steal evidence it can't be used in court.

Not really the case.

Unless the person is acting on behalf of the government when they illegally obtain the evidence, it can usually be used.

I remember a fark story where a guy broke into a house to rob it and discovered evidence of a murder IIRC and gave it to the police.

And the government can say "He didn't act on our behalf,"


He broke in and stole a video camera and tapes.  Turned out the video tapes had child abuse on them, so the robber went to a payphone and gave an anonymous tip as to where the cops could find the tapes.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/20/21982638-alleged-child -s ex-abuser-caught-after-tip-from-burglar?lite

A quick attempt didn't find the Fark.com link but that's the story.  So while I agree it works similarly in the US, the example is from Spain.  It is possible you are recalling a different story though.
 
2014-01-14 11:26:11 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: /plonked it right away


Ok.
 
2014-01-14 11:27:15 AM
Fair and balanced laws depend on using one set of scales.  Rotsa ruck.  We don't.  Utter hypocrisy and sneaking Sally through the alley from traffic court on up.
 
2014-01-14 11:29:09 AM
How much "hacking" was actually done by this guy?

Did he take advantage of a reset password, or did he break into some guy's house, upload a wormy worm on to the hard drive and generally Hollywood the rapists?
 
2014-01-14 11:30:04 AM

CapeFearCadaver: It's about the levels of maturity in various brains and the processing that takes place with different people when assigning judgment or fault.


Is that the one were people generally assign more blame to a chef that accidentally poisons and kills someone, than to a person who intentionally poisons and fails to kill someone?
 
2014-01-14 11:35:08 AM
I see it would have been easier to simply murder the rapists rather than rat them out.

Would have gotten less time apparently as well.
 
2014-01-14 11:36:11 AM

impaler: CapeFearCadaver: It's about the levels of maturity in various brains and the processing that takes place with different people when assigning judgment or fault.

Is that the one were people generally assign more blame to a chef that accidentally poisons and kills someone, than to a person who intentionally poisons and fails to kill someone?


Yep, through brain scans performed at Duke. The special takes it a bit further, though.
 
2014-01-14 11:38:25 AM

Lucky LaRue: html_007: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

I see your point he broke the law.  I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished but damn 10 years?  That is a case of the punishment not fitting the crime.

Maybe, but I wonder if we (collectively) would say the same thing about the people that hacked Target and exposed the financial/personal information of 70 million people.  Do they deserve something less than 10 years?  The difference here is not in the crime, but in the outcome.  I am not particularly interested in having a body of laws that differentiates on outcome - if the judge chooses to do that, then fine, but let's keep the laws fair and balanced.


Really? Cuz nearly every law does that.
Grand theft vs larceny?
Unsafe Discharge of a fire arm vs second degree murder?
Murder vs assault?
 
2014-01-14 11:40:07 AM
The rapist was a football player, and the hacker didn't even try to claim he enjoyed playing Madden, so, such is life.
 
2014-01-14 11:41:53 AM
Joe Paterno is smiling down on this great nation.
 
2014-01-14 11:43:32 AM

dletter: The rapist was a football player, and the hacker didn't even try to claim he enjoyed playing Madden, so, such is life.


"At boy's gonna be all pro some day!  NFL!  Yew get that little sh*t who ratted him out and yew git 'im good!"  I shudder to think what HS and college coaches tell their best racehorses the world has to offer them, and with impunity.  I shudder more that this proves it may be true.
 
2014-01-14 11:44:28 AM
Is it another case of too rich and white for prison?
 
2014-01-14 11:47:10 AM

James!: ReverendJasen: James!: The hacker was over 18 and the rapist was under 18.  18 is the magical line of responsibility for your actions.

Unless you're black.  Then you get tried as an adult because you're such a risk to society.

[static2.businessinsider.com image 480x360]


thatsthejoke.jpg

/I don't hold it against you, everyone was distracted by that troll in the boobies
 
2014-01-14 11:47:13 AM

bunner: Millennium: Nor should they, really. It's not worth it.

Yeah, couple of daft broads got taken around the block and dropped off crying.  Meh.  Gotta look out for the greater good.


And "the greater good" is to encourage theft and invasion of privacy in a de facto dragnet that might catch a couple of wrongdoers? Especially when that dragnet isn't evenly applied, and can thus only catch people who have made enemies?
 
2014-01-14 11:49:13 AM

pippi longstocking: Is it another case of too rich and white for prison?


No. Too football.
 
2014-01-14 11:49:13 AM

Lucky LaRue: html_007: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

I see your point he broke the law.  I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished but damn 10 years?  That is a case of the punishment not fitting the crime.

Maybe, but I wonder if we (collectively) would say the same thing about the people that hacked Target and exposed the financial/personal information of 70 million people.  Do they deserve something less than 10 years?  The difference here is not in the crime, but in the outcome.  I am not particularly interested in having a body of laws that differentiates on outcome - if the judge chooses to do that, then fine, but let's keep the laws fair and balanced.


Yeah what ever happened with that? Are we still looking for a suspect?

Gotta love the quiet no-results investigation into the mishandling of 70 million CC numbers.
 
2014-01-14 11:50:06 AM

DON.MAC: I've played in the IT security game and to me that says they were keeping the whole credit card number.


Congrats on being an idiot and not knowing how transaction ID #'s or batch processing work. Please stay out of IT.
 
2014-01-14 11:52:50 AM

Millennium: bunner: Millennium: Nor should they, really. It's not worth it.

Yeah, couple of daft broads got taken around the block and dropped off crying.  Meh.  Gotta look out for the greater good.

And "the greater good" is to encourage theft and invasion of privacy in a de facto dragnet that might catch a couple of wrongdoers? Especially when that dragnet isn't evenly applied, and can thus only catch people who have made enemies?

www.trbimg.com


You mean like now?  Oh, do you mean, "Only the people who are allowed to should"?
 
2014-01-14 11:54:00 AM

Nabb1: James!: The hacker was over 18 and the rapist was under 18.  18 is the magical line of responsibility for your actions.

Except in states where they can involve juvenile transfer to move bad boys to big boy court.


Huh, Ohio is one of those states, too.
 
2014-01-14 11:54:32 AM

WTFDYW: Ah. Ma'Lik Richmond. Rapist from Steubenville, Ohio whom should have been tried as an adult.


Is that the same guy as the Steubenville Rapist named Ma'Lik Richmond?
 
2014-01-14 11:56:30 AM
 Well of course, they have to punish them for making them prosecute one of their glorious football players. This is about revenge not some petty rape thing, they've got to take this seriously.

/there is no justice in this country
 
2014-01-14 11:57:35 AM
If everything is worse over the computer, and sentencing is harsher because of it, wait til the first rape via this:

cdn2.ubergizmo.com

/link probably NSFW
 
2014-01-14 11:58:28 AM

bunner: Millennium: bunner: Millennium: Nor should they, really. It's not worth it.

Yeah, couple of daft broads got taken around the block and dropped off crying.  Meh.  Gotta look out for the greater good.

And "the greater good" is to encourage theft and invasion of privacy in a de facto dragnet that might catch a couple of wrongdoers? Especially when that dragnet isn't evenly applied, and can thus only catch people who have made enemies?

[www.trbimg.com image 600x398]

You mean like now?  Oh, do you mean, "Only the people who are allowed to should"?


I don't support that either. But what you suggest is not a solution, only a compounding of the problem.
 
2014-01-14 11:59:14 AM
Hey, does this thread have anything to do with Ma'lik Richmond, The Rapist from Steubenville, Ohio?
 
2014-01-14 12:00:48 PM
Ma'Lik.

Come on. when you name a kid like that, there is no way they arent going to grow up to be a rapist.
 
2014-01-14 12:01:37 PM
Well, c'mon now. One is just a rape. Big deal.

The other crime demonstrated the incompetence and corruption of a municipal criminal justice system. We can't have that. People might get the impression that cops and district attorneys don't care about violent crime because there's no money in pursuing it (unlike civil forfeiture involving drugs, for example, or writing speeding tickets).

Can't make a profit on prosecuting rape cases. shiatty ROI.
 
2014-01-14 12:06:02 PM

Millennium: But what you suggest is not a solution, only a compounding of the problem.


Let me brush all this straw off of my lawn and pull the plug on this projector.  There.  What I suggest is that the justice system be utilized to get to the TRUTH in any given case, by  what ever means are extant and to act accordingly.  Not a gymnastic set of monkey bar chimps swinging and ooking and shoving as much overwrought banana oil through the goose as they can in search of what serves the interests of people for whom the law is a petty nuisance, and one that only needs some money thrown at it via a couple of friends in power.  Justice.  What is just.  Not what is expedient, convenient or heels the sh*t down the drain so you can get back to business.  That's what's on the label.   I don't know what you think the appropriate amount of rat feces per million is on what you're having for lunch.
 
2014-01-14 12:10:36 PM

CapeFearCadaver: doglover: Lucky LaRue: You take things entirely too seriously.

Trolling is an art.

You have to practice.

He's only been trying his hand at it for about a week. Give him more time....


Meh. I'm not really for all the troll-shaming that goes on around here. The guy is engaging you all in conversation and attempting to back his points up. That's not trolling, that's called disagreeing. Lets keep that title for the folks who threadshiat and leave or who are obviously just muddying the water.

/I do not agree with him.
 
2014-01-14 12:11:43 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: /I do not agree with him.


Dude, keep reading. I know him and was teasing. You so serious.
 
2014-01-14 12:11:46 PM

gfid: Lucky LaRue: html_007: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

I see your point he broke the law.  I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished but damn 10 years?  That is a case of the punishment not fitting the crime.

Maybe, but I wonder if we (collectively) would say the same thing about the people that hacked Target and exposed the financial/personal information of 70 million people.  Do they deserve something less than 10 years?  The difference here is not in the crime, but in the outcome.  I am not particularly interested in having a body of laws that differentiates on outcome - if the judge chooses to do that, then fine, but let's keep the laws fair and balanced.

There definitely should be room for a judge when deciding a sentence.  I also understand the desire to send a strong message towards hackers, but what this guy did wasn't even malicious except possibly to a worse criminal than he is.

The Target hackers?  Throw the book at them.  Throw the whole goddammed library at them.

I think outcome as well as intent should be weighed carefully during sentencing.


Yeah I think the target ones should get in a lot more trouble. If you look at it they could fark up 70 million credit/debit accounts and hurt way more people. The hackers at Steubenville just exposed a coverup by a school and town. And I think what pisses me off the most is the people in Steubenville that got away with rape. Yeah 2 went to jail for a whole year or less but wernt there more that got away with it?
 
2014-01-14 12:12:30 PM
HE HASN'T EVEN BEEN INDICTED YET. Calm the fark down.
 
2014-01-14 12:15:41 PM
James!: The hacker was over 18 and the rapist was under 18.  18 is the magical line of responsibility for your actions.

Unless you're black.  Then you get tried as an adult because you're such a risk to society



unless you're a girl and had too much to drink
 
2014-01-14 12:15:59 PM

00sweeney: HE HASN'T EVEN BEEN INDICTED YET. Calm the fark down.


*taps watch*
 
2014-01-14 12:16:39 PM

bunner: Millennium: But what you suggest is not a solution, only a compounding of the problem.

Let me brush all this straw off of my lawn and pull the plug on this projector.  There.  What I suggest is that the justice system be utilized to get to the TRUTH in any given case, by  what ever means are extant and to act accordingly.  Not a gymnastic set of monkey bar chimps swinging and ooking and shoving as much overwrought banana oil through the goose as they can in search of what serves the interests of people for whom the law is a petty nuisance, and one that only needs some money thrown at it via a couple of friends in power.


And you call my argument a strawman? All I posted was the logical and inevitable consequence of letting things like this slide. You're the one making ridiculous caricatures of the current situation.

Justice.  What is just.

According to whom? To you? I can't call the way you'd let things slide or bring the hammer down, based on seemingly arbitrary factors, particularly just. Quite the opposite, in fact. The first principle of justice is that it must be applied consistently, based solely on the deeds done and not on extraneous factors. The US has never done a stellar job of living up to that ideal, but is nevertheless light-years ahead of what you propose.

I reiterate that the over-light sentencing of the rapists is a travesty, and the people involved in the cover-up should all go to prison for a very long time for their parts in this. But none of this absolves the hacker of what he did: he is not squaky-clean, and shouldn't be treated as such.
 
2014-01-14 12:17:22 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: troll-shaming


Now THAT, my friends, is how you troll.
 
2014-01-14 12:19:11 PM
Millennium:  According to whom? To you? I can't call the way you'd let things slide or bring the hammer down, based on seemingly arbitrary factors, particularly just. Quite the opposite, in fact. The first principle of justice is that it must be applied consistently, based solely on the deeds done and not on extraneous factors.

No, dear.  According to YOU.  Of course.  You can stop trying to pin your tail on me, now.  Thanks.
 
2014-01-14 12:22:42 PM
as someone who went to school in Steubenville for a number of years, I'm getting a kick (or not...I can't decide).
 
2014-01-14 12:22:56 PM
Rapists should get short sentences.  How is the family of the victim supposed to get justice when the criminal is in protective custody?
 
2014-01-14 12:26:58 PM

bunner: Millennium:  According to whom? To you? I can't call the way you'd let things slide or bring the hammer down, based on seemingly arbitrary factors, particularly just. Quite the opposite, in fact. The first principle of justice is that it must be applied consistently, based solely on the deeds done and not on extraneous factors.

No, dear.  According to YOU.  Of course.


I admit to not being terribly keen on sharing society with those of your philosophical ilk, but ultimately, you have a point here. Who am I to determine the definition of justice? I'm nobody, just like you. And that means we get to duke it out in the public dialogue, winning hearts and minds as best we can. For the moment, it looks like my side is winning, at least on this score: people understand that it makes no sense to drop the whole basket of nuts just to chase the one that fell out.

You can stop trying to pin your tail on me, now.  Thanks.

Oh, but you're making yourself such prime real estate for pinning tails on.
 
2014-01-14 12:27:23 PM

Lucky LaRue: The difference here is not in the crime, but in the outcome. I am not particularly interested in having a body of laws that differentiates on outcome - if the judge chooses to do that, then fine, but let's keep the laws fair and balanced.


Fair & Balanced® laws are the problem here.

/And yes, it is a registered trademark
 
2014-01-14 12:31:30 PM
The really sad and overlooked thing about this case was that the kid who organized the whole thing to get back at the girl because she was his ex, and drove them around to the different parties was the DA's nephew, so he got to testify against the two who were convicted and was able to walk away.
 
2014-01-14 12:35:15 PM

Millennium: Oh, but you're making yourself such prime real estate for pinning tails on.


Annnd, the other shoe has dropped.  Took you long enough

So, presenting damning evidence in a felony criminal matter is extraneous and peripheral and should be punished should it be convenient to string up the presenter on some arcane points of law that the very government that rules us are not obliged to adhere to.  Justice really is about the innocent and the helpful not getting the sh*tty end of he stick.  With or without me, you, a bunch overwrought legal cites or who knows the judge.  It really is.  The justice *system*?  Dear me, no.  That's an utter pigsh*t farm.  Justice, yes.  Because behind every law.  Every single law, when you peel back the layers - is nothing more than who has the most guns and money and the most worrisome authority pose.  And that, sir, is f*cked up.

Oh...

i.imgur.com

Have a thoroughly terrible day.  Bye.  :  )
 
2014-01-14 12:36:34 PM

alice_600: The Muthaship: alice_600: Remember:

If you steal evidence it can't be used in court.

Not really the case.

Unless the person is acting on behalf of the government when they illegally obtain the evidence, it can usually be used.

Still illegally obtained and can't be used. That's where Snowden farked himself.


Wrong.
 
2014-01-14 12:37:14 PM
Do so love the "justice" system.
 
2014-01-14 12:38:03 PM
So the lesson here is dont rape anyone with a computer, you will do serious time.
 
2014-01-14 12:39:06 PM

stuffy: Do so love the "justice" system.


There is no template for arrival at justice.  There is no .xls you can pound stuff into and retrieve the truth.  And if our criminal justice system doesn't prove that, I don't know what will.
 
2014-01-14 12:43:57 PM
Remember folks, embarrassing the authorities is *always* a more grievous crime than rape. Always.

Especially if your embarrassment extends to them actually having to do something about the rape...you know, do their job.

If they could assign the death penalty to something, it would be "embarrassing the state".

Remember Citizen. Pick up that can.

img.fark.net
 
2014-01-14 12:47:01 PM

James!: The hacker was over 18 and the rapist was under 18.  18 is the magical line of responsibility for your actions.


No, hasn't been that way for a long time.  Every year a lesser crime becomes eligible for being tried as an adult and the ages are getting lowe

pueblonative: Steubenville hacker faces up to 10 years in prison, Steubenville rapist is already out of juvenile detention

FTFS.

Sentencing guidelines; how do they motherfarking work?


Terribly, like the have pretty much for always.
 
2014-01-14 12:48:39 PM

bunner: Millennium: Oh, but you're making yourself such prime real estate for pinning tails on.

Annnd, the other shoe has dropped.  Took you long enough


Generic wordplay concerning endurance.

So, presenting damning evidence in a felony criminal matter is extraneous and peripheral and should be punished should it be convenient to string up the presenter on some arcane points of law that the very government that rules us are not obliged to adhere to.

Certainly I believe that the government should be held strictly and absolutely to these same rules. Some would call me a fundamentalist on that score, in fact. But that is another battle, to be fought in other discussions, and the fact that it hasn't yet been won still doesn't absolve this guy of his crimes.

Justice really is about the innocent and the helpful not getting the sh*tty end of he stick.

That's only half of it. You've forgotten the equally-important part where those who do harm are brought to account for their actions. That part has already failed to apply to some of the people involved with this case -including those who our society most desperately needs to hold accountable- but this still doesn't absolve the hacker of his crimes. Even in the face of partial failure, we must do what we can.

With or without me, you, a bunch overwrought legal cites or who knows the judge.  It really is.  The justice *system*?  Dear me, no.  That's an utter pigsh*t farm.  Justice, yes.  Because behind every law.  Every single law, when you peel back the layers - is nothing more than who has the most guns and money and the most worrisome authority pose.  And that, sir, is f*cked up.

Is this the part where you don the V mask and spraypaint the anarchy symbol on your local library? Because that would totally add punch to your argument. Your brand of justice is your six-grade gym class for all of society: not so different from what you characterize mine, except that instead of the slim hope of holding the officials accountable that exists in my system, yours has no hope at all. I'll pass.
 
2014-01-14 12:49:23 PM

bunner: The Muthaship: bunner: I've never actually seen a meeting.

Oh, I've been to several of those.....

And there it is.  Quod Erat Demonstratum


Ooh! You speak French!
 
2014-01-14 12:50:07 PM

Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.


images.sodahead.com
 
2014-01-14 12:51:10 PM

Ghastly: Ooh! You speak French!


I hevv eh priceless entique grahhnd peyenno.
 
2014-01-14 12:58:15 PM
Let me get this out of the way. It's great that he helped expose a horrendous crime.  Now, that part where he farked himself is the trying to get school administrators and others involved in this case to take extra-legal steps using blackmail of personal information ABOUT THEM(SSN, etc) while the investigation was ongoing.
 
2014-01-14 01:04:53 PM
Here is a case where there clearly was evidence to uncover, and the prosecution wasn't able to provide it.  So some dude who is not constrained by the rules of obtaining such evidence, went ahead and did it.

Seems kind of a shame to me that he may end up doing time for that.  He really should have kept his mouth shut.  If he hadn't come forward, he wouldn't have gotten caught.

Not that I advocate hacking, or what this guy did.  But he exposes a serious flaw in our system that the evidence in question, though it existed, could not be obtained legally.

Considering that the ends justify the means in this case, I hope that he is treated more like the guy from Catch Me if You Can.  That would be, to let him do some time, because, yes, he broke the law.  But have him do some teaching as to how he got the information afterward.
 
2014-01-14 01:11:21 PM

durbnpoisn: That would be, to let him do some time, because, yes, he broke the law.


You man like all those Wall St. firms, brokerages and banks that conspired to decimate an entire economic sector did?
 
2014-01-14 01:13:04 PM

durbnpoisn: Considering that the ends justify the means in this case


I wonder how many people were murdered in the 20th Century alone on the basis of this exact sentiment.
 
2014-01-14 01:18:27 PM

DON.MAC: Maybe they had their database encrypted but if you have the key to say "This is Sam's card, please encrypted it and put it in the database", you also have the key to decrypt it.


I just wanted to point out that this sentence is totally false.  Encryption schemes in which you use a different key to encrypt something than you use to decrypt it are use so frequently that most of you who were unaware of the fact would call me a liar if I told you exactly how often.

/not ALL the packets, but SOOOOO many
 
2014-01-14 01:19:36 PM

This text is now purple: durbnpoisn: Considering that the ends justify the means in this case

I wonder how many people were murdered in the 20th Century alone on the basis of this exact sentiment.


20th century? Didn't we have the story in the last few months where the family was contacted first and killed someone that had kidnapped their child? Justice served.
 
2014-01-14 01:25:43 PM

LemSkroob: Ma'Lik.

Come on. when you name a kid like that, there is no way they arent going to grow up to be a rapist.


Thanks, we needed some racism in this thread.
 
2014-01-14 01:25:48 PM

This text is now purple: durbnpoisn: Considering that the ends justify the means in this case

I wonder how many people were murdered in the 20th Century alone on the basis of this exact sentiment.


Not nearly enough.
 
2014-01-14 01:26:08 PM

neomunk: DON.MAC: Maybe they had their database encrypted but if you have the key to say "This is Sam's card, please encrypted it and put it in the database", you also have the key to decrypt it.

I just wanted to point out that this sentence is totally false.  Encryption schemes in which you use a different key to encrypt something than you use to decrypt it are use so frequently that most of you who were unaware of the fact would call me a liar if I told you exactly how often.

/not ALL the packets, but SOOOOO many


To be fair, though, public-key encryption is not often used to directly encrypt data. The algorithms don't lend themselves well to encrypting large amounts, so standard practice is to encrypt your data with a random symmetric key, then encrypt that key with the public-key system when you need to send it over the wire.
 
2014-01-14 01:27:08 PM

bunner: This text is now purple: durbnpoisn: Considering that the ends justify the means in this case

I wonder how many people were murdered in the 20th Century alone on the basis of this exact sentiment.

Not nearly enough.


Yeah, definitely time for the V mask and the spray paint.
 
2014-01-14 01:29:52 PM

bunner: durbnpoisn: That would be, to let him do some time, because, yes, he broke the law.

You man like all those Wall St. firms, brokerages and banks that conspired to decimate an entire economic sector did?


This text is now purple: durbnpoisn: Considering that the ends justify the means in this case

I wonder how many people were murdered in the 20th Century alone on the basis of this exact sentiment.


What are either one of you talking about?
I don't see how those points really have anything to do with my post.

I suppose I can answer with my opinion, in any case...
•  The people that have been raping the economy should be doing time.  Obviously.
•  People get murdered all the time.  To someone, there must be a reason.  Some people really DO deserve it.  I'm not going to go case by case for every murder in the world, for an entire century, to defend that point.
 
2014-01-14 01:30:59 PM

neomunk: DON.MAC: Maybe they had their database encrypted but if you have the key to say "This is Sam's card, please encrypted it and put it in the database", you also have the key to decrypt it.

I just wanted to point out that this sentence is totally false.  Encryption schemes in which you use a different key to encrypt something than you use to decrypt it are use so frequently that most of you who were unaware of the fact would call me a liar if I told you exactly how often.

/not ALL the packets, but SOOOOO many


...which might be significant, if there were a use-case for a retailer to store CC numbers in their own database without actually being able to access them.
 
2014-01-14 01:32:25 PM

voodoohotdog: WTFDYW: Ah. Ma'Lik Richmond. Rapist from Steubenville, Ohio whom should have been tried as an adult.

Is that the same guy as the Steubenville Rapist named Ma'Lik Richmond?


I believe the the Steubenville Rapist was named Ma'Lik Richmond, not Malik Richmond or MaLik Richmond.
 
2014-01-14 01:33:03 PM

durbnpoisn: The people that have been raping the economy should be doing time.  Obviously.


But they won't.  That was the point.
 
2014-01-14 01:35:06 PM
More to the point, this is the point.

bunner: Because behind every law.  Every single law, when you peel back the layers - is nothing more than who has the most guns and money and the most worrisome authority pose.

 
2014-01-14 01:35:13 PM
Technically, isn't Ma'Lik Richmond also a pedophile in addition to being a rapist?  In that he rapes children.  I don't know if that makes Ma'Lik Richmond a child rapist.
 
2014-01-14 01:38:19 PM

Molavian: Technically, isn't Ma'Lik Richmond also a pedophile in addition to being a rapist?  In that he rapes children.  I don't know if that makes Ma'Lik Richmond a child rapist.


Why is everybody ignoring the other guy, Trent Mays, who was also convicted?
 
2014-01-14 01:48:53 PM

ongbok: Molavian: Technically, isn't Ma'Lik Richmond also a pedophile in addition to being a rapist?  In that he rapes children.  I don't know if that makes Ma'Lik Richmond a child rapist.

Why is everybody ignoring the other guy, Trent Mays, who was also convicted?


Because he's still in jail, where as convicted rapist Ma'Lik Richmond of Steubenville was let out in less than a year for "good behavior".
 
2014-01-14 01:51:37 PM

Tacious: Ma'lik Richmond, The Rapist from Steubenville, Ohio


Why, yes; yes it is about Ma'lik Richmond, The Rapist from Steubenville, Ohio.  Why do you ask about Ma'lik Richmond, The Rapist from Steubenville, Ohio; do you need information regarding Ma'lik Richmond, The Rapist from Steubenville, Ohio?

/Ma'lik Richmond, The Rapist from Steubenville, Ohio
 
2014-01-14 01:53:36 PM
To find out more about Ma'lik Richmond, The Rapist from Steubenville, Ohio, visit your local, online sex offender database.
 
2014-01-14 01:55:42 PM

China White Tea: ongbok: Molavian: Technically, isn't Ma'Lik Richmond also a pedophile in addition to being a rapist?  In that he rapes children.  I don't know if that makes Ma'Lik Richmond a child rapist.

Why is everybody ignoring the other guy, Trent Mays, who was also convicted?

Because he's still in jail, where as convicted rapist Ma'Lik Richmond of Steubenville was let out in less than a year for "good behavior".


Richmond was convicted of rape and sentenced to one year. Mays was sentenced to rape and sentenced to one year, in addition Mays was also convicted of the dissemination of child pornography because he sent out pictures of her naked. Mays had an extra charge for doing something that Richmond didn't do. Richmond didn't receive any special treatment over Mays, so they should be both equally mentioned.
 
2014-01-14 02:03:32 PM
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2014-01-14 02:05:30 PM

ongbok: China White Tea: ongbok: Molavian: Technically, isn't Ma'Lik Richmond also a pedophile in addition to being a rapist?  In that he rapes children.  I don't know if that makes Ma'Lik Richmond a child rapist.

Why is everybody ignoring the other guy, Trent Mays, who was also convicted?

Because he's still in jail, where as convicted rapist Ma'Lik Richmond of Steubenville was let out in less than a year for "good behavior".

Richmond was convicted of rape and sentenced to one year. Mays was sentenced to rape and sentenced to one year, in addition Mays was also convicted of the dissemination of child pornography because he sent out pictures of her naked. Mays had an extra charge for doing something that Richmond didn't do. Richmond didn't receive any special treatment over Mays, so they should be both equally mentioned.


All of which is true, but doesn't change the fact that the answer to your question is that, "Ma'Lik Richmond is no longer in jail."  That's the source of the outrage, and why he gets all the focus.
 
2014-01-14 02:20:02 PM

China White Tea: ongbok: China White Tea: ongbok: Molavian: Technically, isn't Ma'Lik Richmond also a pedophile in addition to being a rapist?  In that he rapes children.  I don't know if that makes Ma'Lik Richmond a child rapist.

Why is everybody ignoring the other guy, Trent Mays, who was also convicted?

Because he's still in jail, where as convicted rapist Ma'Lik Richmond of Steubenville was let out in less than a year for "good behavior".

Richmond was convicted of rape and sentenced to one year. Mays was sentenced to rape and sentenced to one year, in addition Mays was also convicted of the dissemination of child pornography because he sent out pictures of her naked. Mays had an extra charge for doing something that Richmond didn't do. Richmond didn't receive any special treatment over Mays, so they should be both equally mentioned.

All of which is true, but doesn't change the fact that the answer to your question is that, "Ma'Lik Richmond is no longer in jail."  That's the source of the outrage, and why he gets all the focus.


If Mays wouldn't have been a dumb rapist and tweeted out pictures of what he did, he would have been out of jail also. Still don't get the outrage for one rapist because he is out of jail, but no outrage for the other rapist and child pornographer because he is still in jail.
 
2014-01-14 02:49:44 PM

Lucky LaRue: doglover: EyeballKid: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

You can do better than this to get attention, can't you?

He really can't.

You take things entirely too seriously.  How does this kid's fate - whether he walks away scott-free or goes to jail for the rest of his life - effect you in the slightest?


Well, as a woman, sending the message that hacking is a more serious crime than rape kind of affects me...and every other woman out there...

/And probably a few men, too
//But in America men rape women as a rule of thumb, who knows why
 
2014-01-14 02:53:23 PM

ongbok: China White Tea: ongbok: China White Tea: ongbok: Molavian: Technically, isn't Ma'Lik Richmond also a pedophile in addition to being a rapist?  In that he rapes children.  I don't know if that makes Ma'Lik Richmond a child rapist.

Why is everybody ignoring the other guy, Trent Mays, who was also convicted?

Because he's still in jail, where as convicted rapist Ma'Lik Richmond of Steubenville was let out in less than a year for "good behavior".

Richmond was convicted of rape and sentenced to one year. Mays was sentenced to rape and sentenced to one year, in addition Mays was also convicted of the dissemination of child pornography because he sent out pictures of her naked. Mays had an extra charge for doing something that Richmond didn't do. Richmond didn't receive any special treatment over Mays, so they should be both equally mentioned.

All of which is true, but doesn't change the fact that the answer to your question is that, "Ma'Lik Richmond is no longer in jail."  That's the source of the outrage, and why he gets all the focus.

If Mays wouldn't have been a dumb rapist and tweeted out pictures of what he did, he would have been out of jail also. Still don't get the outrage for one rapist because he is out of jail, but no outrage for the other rapist and child pornographer because he is still in jail.


While we are on the subject of Ma'Lik Richmond the convicted rapist and Trent Mays the convicted rapist, what ever happened to the admitted rapist Matthew Barnett?
 
2014-01-14 03:00:42 PM

PsiChick: Well, as a woman, sending the message that hacking is a more serious crime than rape kind of affects me...and every other woman out there...


Although I agree that the rapists ought to have been given much harsher sentences, I don't see how the way things turned out can be reasonably interpreted as sending a message that hacking is a more serious crime than rape.
 
2014-01-14 03:13:40 PM

Millennium: PsiChick: Well, as a woman, sending the message that hacking is a more serious crime than rape kind of affects me...and every other woman out there...

Although I agree that the rapists ought to have been given much harsher sentences, I don't see how the way things turned out can be reasonably interpreted as sending a message that hacking is a more serious crime than rape.


Hacker gets more time than rapist. Um...what part of that was confusing again? Or do we generally give more time to  lesser crimes now?

/"But judge, he murdered someone and only gets a month, and I just jaywalked! Isn't nine years unfair?"
//"Not at all. You committed the less serious crime."
 
2014-01-14 03:13:57 PM

html_007: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

I see your point he broke the law.  I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished but damn 10 years?  That is a case of the punishment not fitting the crime.


Things you can't stop people doing have harsh penalties.
 
2014-01-14 03:24:34 PM

PsiChick: Um...what part of that was confusing again?


Apparently, the part where only one of them has done any time.

Possibly the part where only one of them is an adult, and thus capable of actually committing a crime under Ohio law (unless the juvenile is bound over to adult court, which didn't happen here).

It's complicated.
 
2014-01-14 03:28:40 PM

jayphat: Now, that part where he farked himself is the trying to get school administrators and others involved in this case to take extra-legal steps using blackmail of personal information ABOUT THEM(SSN, etc) while the investigation was ongoing.


And everyone knows that's worse than rape.
 
2014-01-14 03:34:15 PM

The Muthaship: PsiChick: Um...what part of that was confusing again?

Apparently, the part where only one of them has done any time.

Possibly the part where only one of them is an adult, and thus capable of actually committing a crime under Ohio law (unless the juvenile is bound over to adult court, which didn't happen here).

It's complicated.


Yeah, the conversation is still about the  potential for the hacker to do more time than the rapist. And yes, one is an adult. Doesn't mean they didn't commit different levels of crime (not that I'm all for recognizing the difference between adult and teenaged brains, just...they aren't the same thing).
 
2014-01-14 03:42:32 PM
10 years for tattling on someone. I know someone that got less time for armed robbery.
 
2014-01-14 03:43:05 PM

PsiChick: Yeah, the conversation is still about the  potential for the hacker to do more time than the rapist


So, do you want the penalties for hacking into other people's personal info and threatening to use it for blackmail purposes to be reduced because a juvenile wasn't held in juvie as long he possibly could be?

 I know the comparison here is disturbing when you look at it in the framework they've chosen, but it's really pretty contrived.  The juvenile committed no crime at all under Ohio law.  He was just adjudicated delinquent based on having committed acts which, if here were and adult, would amount to rape.  He could have been held for the max, but then the court loses all jurisdiction after his release.  This way, they will be monitoring him closely (theoretically).  Nothing at all has been done to the hacker, and it's meaningless to guess what might happen to him, let alone create an injustice around which to rally based on this potentiality.
 
2014-01-14 03:47:22 PM

MechaPyx: 10 years for tattling on someone. I know someone that got less time for armed robbery.


img.fark.net
 
2014-01-14 03:54:21 PM
This reminds me of the crazy stories I read every day in various newspapers where the guy who molested a child gets 2 years and they guy who downloaded a video of it gets 20 years.  Makes no sense to me.

/both should get life
 
2014-01-14 03:54:32 PM

The Muthaship: PsiChick: Yeah, the conversation is still about the  potential for the hacker to do more time than the rapist

So, do you want the penalties for hacking into other people's personal info and threatening to use it for blackmail purposes to be reduced because a juvenile wasn't held in juvie as long he possibly could be?

 I know the comparison here is disturbing when you look at it in the framework they've chosen, but it's really pretty contrived.  The juvenile committed no crime at all under Ohio law.  He was just adjudicated delinquent based on having committed acts which, if here were and adult, would amount to rape.  He could have been held for the max, but then the court loses all jurisdiction after his release.  This way, they will be monitoring him closely (theoretically).  Nothing at all has been done to the hacker, and it's meaningless to guess what might happen to him, let alone create an injustice around which to rally based on this potentiality.


No, it was rape. It's not 'if he were an adult it would amount to rape'. It was point-blank rape. That's sort of my issue here.
 
2014-01-14 03:56:43 PM

PsiChick: It's not 'if he were an adult it would amount to rape'.


It is in Ohio.

And I agree it's stupid.

But, if you want to maintain separate courts for adults and teens, it's the price you must pay.  At least in Ohio's opinion.
 
2014-01-14 04:00:39 PM

PsiChick: Hacker gets more time than rapist. Um...what part of that was confusing again? Or do we generally give more time to lesser crimes now?


It is widely acknowledged that the rapists got far less time than they should have, and, in fact, far less time than they could have been given under the law. This makes it a poor basis for comparison to the maximum sentence that the hacker might face.
 
2014-01-14 04:17:50 PM

chairmenmeow47: The Richomond family, following the release,which focused on how hard the past 16 months have been for MaLik

won't someone PLEASE think of the football players!


Sports ball serious business.
 
2014-01-14 04:19:30 PM
Sometimes I forget how much <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid ">Lawf ul Stupid</a> there is on Fark.
 
2014-01-14 04:19:33 PM

Millennium: PsiChick: Hacker gets more time than rapist. Um...what part of that was confusing again? Or do we generally give more time to lesser crimes now?

It is widely acknowledged that the rapists got far less time than they should have, and, in fact, far less time than they could have been given under the law. This makes it a poor basis for comparison to the maximum sentence that the hacker might face.


Pretty much. If (big if) he is actually convicted and sentenced to more time than the actual rapist, then yes, I will be angered by this story.

More angered, I mean. There's really nothing about this case that isn't anger provoking.
 
2014-01-14 04:23:47 PM

PsiChick: Lucky LaRue: doglover: EyeballKid: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

You can do better than this to get attention, can't you?

He really can't.

You take things entirely too seriously.  How does this kid's fate - whether he walks away scott-free or goes to jail for the rest of his life - effect you in the slightest?

Well, as a woman, sending the message that hacking is a more serious crime than rape kind of affects me...and every other woman out there...

/And probably a few men, too
//But in America men rape women as a rule of thumb, who knows why


Women slut around on their man bringing disease home, as God intended.
 
2014-01-14 05:21:54 PM

Lucky LaRue: html_007: Lucky LaRue: I don't see how anyone can be upset that a criminal is getting punished.

I see your point he broke the law.  I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished but damn 10 years?  That is a case of the punishment not fitting the crime.

Maybe, but I wonder if we (collectively) would say the same thing about the people that hacked Target and exposed the financial/personal information of 70 million people.  Do they deserve something less than 10 years?  The difference here is not in the crime, but in the outcome.  I am not particularly interested in having a body of laws that differentiates on outcome - if the judge chooses to do that, then fine, but let's keep the laws fair and balanced.


Actually, yes, we should, and though IANAL, I don't think I am incorrect in the assertion that there are times when prosecutors and judges are allowed to use their discretion to determine if the mitigating circumstances of a case (and I think that exposing all of the evidence the prosecution used in the Steubenville rape case, as well as some of the evidence used in the cases the prosecution mounted against the adults involved in covering up the crime, would qualify as 'mitigating circumstances' here) warrant a look at whether or not to proceed with a case and warrant mitigating sentencing in a case to a lower sentence than the maximum allowed under the law. I've seen and read of cases where both prosecutors and judges have made those decisions based on the latitude they have to do just that.

Could be the headline on the article is clickbait, but the more likely scenario in my opinion is that this guy is a member of Anonymous--and that, specifically, is probably why this is being pursued in this manner. If he were Joe Anybody from two streets over with no ties to Anon and Anon hadn't taken this on, I have my doubts as to whether or not this kid would be facing charges--or if he were facing charges, if they'd be anything more serious than a low-level misdemeanor.
 
2014-01-14 05:55:50 PM

html_007: That is a case of the punishment not fitting the crime.


Are you stupid?  Hackers threatens the profits of the only people that count.  Corporations.
 
2014-01-14 05:57:41 PM

PsiChick: But in America men rape women as a rule of thumb


Say what?  Are you suggesting all men are rapists?
 
2014-01-14 06:03:32 PM

OgreMagi: PsiChick: But in America men rape women as a rule of thumb

Say what?  Are you suggesting all men are rapists?


...Uh, no, how the hell did you get that out of my post? I'm pointing out that there's a typical gender of rapist v. victim, not that all men are rapists.
 
2014-01-14 06:45:25 PM

PsiChick: OgreMagi: PsiChick: But in America men rape women as a rule of thumb

Say what?  Are you suggesting all men are rapists?

...Uh, no, how the hell did you get that out of my post? I'm pointing out that there's a typical gender of rapist v. victim, not that all men are rapists.


It can be read that way. Phrasing is important. That's why contracts are written in near gibberish levels of redundant redundancy.
 
2014-01-14 08:34:57 PM
The difference between the penalties in the two crimes highlights the judicial system's preference between the the two "victims"?
 
2014-01-15 02:03:45 AM
While I can grin and applaud when the Anonymous people get involved in exposing coverups, or trolling what I think are appropriate targets, when they break laws to do it then they've committed a crime.  If they don't get caught/arrested, then fine.  If they get caught, I hope that the justice their actions might have brought at the time carries weight with people testifying on their behalf and/or with the sentencing.  If what this guy did was just and not post-fact grandstanding then see above.
 
2014-01-15 08:16:48 AM
This case really bothers me. The utter lack of Justice involved, People in Ohio caring more for how the case affects the convicted rapists Ma'Lik Richmond and Trent Mays, rather than how their crimes affected their victim. Nobody taking those who attempted to cover up the crime to task, but the DA calling for the hacker's head, who announced to the world who the rapists (Ma'Lik Richmond and Trent Mays) were.

The whole situation really exposes just how screwed up our justice system is, as well as how screwed up our society is, especially when it comes to the Privileged Classes (The Rich, The Athletes, The Celebrities, etc).
 
Displayed 196 of 196 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report