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

[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.

EDIT:

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?

 

[thefrizzlefry]

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.

 

[JB1528]

Even though 15 years is a little steep she was still wrong. What she did wasn't an online protest, a protest is peaceful and it gets your word across without hindering the operations of whoever your protesting against. What she did was more in lines of a riot, attacking private corporations and hindering their operations because of their own private choices.

 

[BrailleOperatic]

A little off topic, but she was 20, not sixteen.

More to the point, I agree there's people more deserving off being pursued and arrested, but as it stands right now, she did break the law. I back her oe hundred percent, and I think the law is insufficient and written by people who don't understand what it is they're legislating, but it is what it is. Law enforcement has to pursue, regardless of their opinions on it.

 

[DirgeNovak]

How is hacking PayPal "doing good" or "peaceful"? It's a crime for a reason.
15 years is too much for this, but I for one am glad she's being punished.

 

[Dags90]

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?

 

[bob1052]

Congratulations on having incredible bias when trying to regurgitate news.

It wasn't just an "online protest". It was a malicious DDoS attack against many corporations with the intent in causing actual damage.

 

[synobal]

ya it's pretty misleading, I saw journalist and online protest I thought she made a petition page on facebook or something. Not ddosing a website. I doubt she will get fifteen years, also I think it's kinda funny how much sympathy she's getting. If it was a twenty four year old guy living at home with his parents with very little social interaction he'd be getting smeared all over and getting labeled a dangerous and unstable individual.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

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 charged with 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?

Huh, that was quick. Usually with topics like this, it take a page or two of baseless verbal attacks aimed at the authorities before someone points out that the story isn't as bad as it sounds.

I guess we can get to the part where everyone continues to ignore reason in favor of random flaming now. Go ahead, Escapist. Make me proud.

 

[The Virgo]

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.

 

[TonyVonTonyus]

Err, taking down business websites because they made business desicions that they don't agree with? That doesn't sound particularly "good and righteous" to me but 15 years is a bit harsh. 15 years is what you give a fully grown attempted murders or someone robs a bank or burns down a house, not an internet hacker.

 

[gigastrike]

15 years sounds like a bit much. Still, off to jail with the hacker.

 

[DustyDrB]

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.

 

[Lilani]

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.

Here's the thing about good intentions: they mean absolutely nothing in the criminal justice system. That's right. Nothing. The only things that matter are the actions you take, and the results that follow.

For example: Let's say somebody is charged with murder, and there is plenty of physical evidence proving without a doubt that they committed the crime. But due to a technicality, maybe a mishandling of evidence, all charges are dropped. Then I go to this person's house and shoot them to death.

My intentions were pure. I only wanted to protect the public by bringing to justice this person who obviously committed the crime. But in the eyes of the law, that means absolutely nothing. It is sill capital murder. And with all of the nutjobs out there, I thank God that our justice system does not take into consideration the intentions of the criminal (except in the case of manslaughter and second-degree murder).

Hers wasn't a "peaceful protest," either. She interfered with the website--the private property--of Paypal. She interrupted and hindered their business, and the fact that their business is in money only makes it all the worse. A "peaceful protest" is one that does not adversely affect whatever is being protested protested in any way. She actively pursued to hinder the company. It wasn't an accident, and nor was it out of her control. She didn't have to participate, but she did.

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

She knew what she was getting in to.

She has to face the consequences.

 

[Mouse_Crouse]

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

You pretty much summed up the important stuff here. The person involved committed a crime that caused damage to property. And they used the internet to do it. They won't get the full 15 years. The judge will most likely see it for what it is, a protest. And give them a light sentence, as well as a stern talking to. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean the thing to do is break the law to prove a point. I for one hope all involved are caught and punished. The internet isn't some wild west where you can do anything you want just because you think you are hiding behind a computer.

 

[Giest4life]

How the fuck can Rupert Murdoch get away with his shit, but this girl has to be pursued cause she broke the law? Bull. Fucking. Shit.

 

[Lilani]

Err, taking down business websites because they made business desicions that they don't agree with? That doesn't sound particularly "good and righteous" to me but 15 years is a bit harsh. 15 years is what you give a fully grown attempted murders or someone robs a bank or burns down a house, not an internet hacker.

15 years sounds like a bit much. Still, off to jail with the hacker.

How is hacking PayPal "doing good" or "peaceful"? It's a crime for a reason.
15 years is too much for this, but I for one am glad she's being punished.

Even though 15 years is a little steep she was still wrong. What she did wasn't an online protest, a protest is peaceful and it gets your word across without hindering the operations of whoever your protesting against. What she did was more in lines of a riot, attacking private corporations and hindering their operations because of their own private choices.

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.

Okay. Let's clear something up here, shall we? Fifteen years is the MAXIMUM SENTENCE for the crime that she has been arrested for. She has not been on trial yet. She has not been charged yet. She has not been sentenced yet. Hell, there's still a chance they just let her go, depending on the evidence they have. She's only been arrested. And unless they find her to be a ringleader or her crime goes A LOT further than what was said in the article, I guarantee she will not be given the full fifteen years. But, again, if she is brought to trial, that all depends on the charges they pursue, if she is found guilty, what she gets found guilty of, and what the judge decides is appropriate.

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

How the fuck can Rupert Murdoch get away with his shit, but this girl has to be pursued cause she broke the law? Bull. Fucking. Shit.

I'm sorry, are you complaining that this girl is in trouble with the law, for breaking the law?

I am seriously confused.