Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

The facts of the case are (almost) undisputed. What the guy did implicated him for several felonies. He had exceedingly good legal representation --- just read any of the court record to see that. His team managed to deadlock the jury on the most serious charge he faced. The one felony he got dinged with resulted from his destruction of evidence. And all this after (quick reminder) the guy broke into the still-active email account of John McCain's running mate during the 2008 election.

It is very, very hard for me to imagine mustering much sympathy for him. People are routinely imprisoned for computer-related crimes less blatant than this one. More importantly, people are routinely imprisoned for truly victimless crimes like "intent-to-distribute" escalations of simple drug possession. None of them have the resources this guy seems to have had.

I'm not sure the "burden" of a low-security prison far from his home is an injustice of a cosmic scale.

View on HN

There's so such thing as being "dinged" with a felony. He will wear that albatross around his neck for the rest of his life.

It's not an "injustice of a cosmic scale" so it may not rise to your threshold of caring, but he's still a young man going to prison for what is essentially a prank. Have a little compassion.

This isn't a prank. This is an attempt to influence the election of the most important position in the land using felonious means. He's lucky he's only getting what he's getting, what he did is far more serious.

It is blindingly obvious that most expressions of sympathy here are because people approve of the target of the felonious actions. Had he hacked Biden's email the press would have called for his head and wrung their hands so hard about the evils of people who oppose Obama/Biden that they might have fallen off due to lack of blood flow.

But creating an environment where it's OK or acceptable to do this sort of this thing to "acceptable targets" is creating an environment where one day, you'll be an "acceptable target". Take a stand. Attempting to influence elections like this is wrong and can't be tolerated, in addition to the fact that hacking emails is wrong and can't be tolerated. Being sympathetic because you like the target is embracing the rule of men, not the rule of law.

I have no idea where you're inferring my support of the kids actions based on his target, but please don't that get in the way of your political tangent.

Being sympathetic because you like the target is embracing the rule of men, not the rule of law.

No. I'm sympathetic because it was a very stupid prank, not because of the target.

What was the actual damage caused? It certainly didn't "paralyze" Palin's campaign.

Had he hacked Biden's blog, he probably wouldn't have found official business illegally done on a personal email.

How come Palin hasn't been charged with anything? She just resigns and people don't bother to follow up. That's fine and all, but it's a nice backdrop to this kid getting the book thrown at him.

There is immense incentive within the state of Alaska --- where Palin is extremely unpopular (in Wasilla, her hometown, her memoir is shelved at a bookstore under "Alaska Fiction") --- to charge Palin with crimes. She has been under near continuous investigation since assuming statewide office.

The only people I see suggesting that this email spool contained evidence of wrongdoing are partisan armchair legal theorists. And, for the record, I think Palin is a genuine force for evil in our country.

Is there, though? I mean, she was being investigated for a bunch of things, going after people who had p'd off her husband and such, and then it just dropped after she left office. Bush is unpopular too, but I don't see anyone going after any of the stuff that his admin did.

Meanwhile, if your email was hacked? No way the feds take the case. That's what I'm upset about, mostly. The dufus broke the law but it seems we have an entirely different standard for enforcement.

RE: evidence of wrongdoing, state business over personal email is illegal, period, and for very good reasons. This is professional ethics 101 if you've taken an oath to serve the public in elected office. If you're doing public business, it has to be on the record. It's legal not theory, it's legal fact.. if it applies to an Alderman, it applies to the Governor.

So, there are two wrongs here instead of one. So what? When did "two wrongs make a right" become the height of debate instead of a childish error?

And people wonder why I see "politics!" pouring forth from every orifice here. Put them both in jail. If that's what the rule of law demands, do it. Doesn't bother me. I want to live in a country where my elected officials do their dealings on the record as required by law and people are not allowed to break into my email merely because I am a politically unpopular target. (Thanks to the fact that I think this way, I'll never not be on the politically unpopular list if one is ever actually allowed to come into existence. Freedom's important.)

See, I disagree with 'jerf and agree with you: it was a prank.

Which makes it worse.

Tens of thousands of people, many of them parents, are currently serving time in prison because they were at random selected to be among the 1% of American drug users arbitrarily selected for prosecution, and inhabited the (large) subset of those drug users who lacked the means to defend themselves once charged.

THIS nitwit went out of his way to harm somebody else for his own amusement.

Did I say anything about injustice? Sympathy is a commodity regularly dispensed to those in the wrong. The point of my comment is to explain that a low-security prison is one thing. One far away from anyone who cares about you is an added punishment. I'm not saying it's unjust, only a considerable part of the punishment worth consideration, on a human--not cosmic--scale.

Maybe the bigger question is, is this a proportional response for his crime?

No. The prosecution screwed up and hung a case on identity theft and wire fraud instead of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 or similar statute, so he is essentially serving time solely for destroying evidence.

So you think somebody who broke into an email account should serve more time if the wheels of justice are properly turning?

Would that imply then that other, clearly more serious crimes, that result in similar sentences, should have their sentences increased to be proportional?

I'm not asking to be judgmental, I'm honestly curious. In my mind, breaking into a mailbox isn't that big of a deal in most cases. But I can recognize an alternate argument such as "what if the mailbox in question contained corporate secrets worth billions of dollars".

In the former a year or more sentence seems excessive, in the later case a year would seem insufficient.

Correct. That is what I think. Incidentally, breaking into a physical mailbox is a much bigger deal, which makes zero sense to me.

Perhaps then, there should be wider sentencing leeway?

Incidentally, breaking into a physical mailbox is a much bigger deal, which makes zero sense to me.

So far, most people think that physical incursions into a person's private things are more serious than virtual incursions. Perhaps it's the physical safety aspect of it that they think is important.

For what it's worth, I think virtual privacy should be treated exactly the same as physical privacy, and sadly the law hasn't quite figured that out (I think we're in agreement on this)

But I disagree with you that punishment should always be severe. I think data shows that severe punishments do little to prevent crime, and end up just costing everybody lots of tax dollars in incarceration costs.

I agree that there should be wider sentencing leeway in general. I think much more should be left to the discretion of judges.

I do not agree --- in fact, I militantly disagree --- with the notion that physical harm should be more severely punished than virtual harm. Crimes should be punished based on the harm they cause and based on society's interests in deterring crimes. The ease with which a crime is committed should not be a factor in its sentencing.

All crimes are going to get easier to commit this century.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com