Hacker News Reader

Comment by inoop | Hacker News Reader

So let me get this straight, the guy hacked into his neighbour's WiFi and used it to mess with their MySpace page, e-mail coworkers, post a picture of 'pubescent girl having sex with two young boys' (I'd have gone for tubgirl, but okay), and threaten Joe Biden. And this gets him eighteen years in prison? In most countries you get eighteen years for murder.

I'm sure the guy is a creepy douche, and what he did is clearly wrong, but these look like trumped up charges by a law firm that knows how to play ball. No-one will come out in defense of this man now that he has been publicly labeled a pedophile, even though I see no evidence of that in the article. If he really were into children, would they not have found a stash of pictures or videos when their confiscated his machine? Instead they found only the one he posted to myspace. I'm not sure how young the girl in the picture really was, but anyone looking to shock can easily get such material from say, 4chan.

So really what we have here is a cracked WEP key, some e-mail harassment, a picture of a young girl having sex, and a death-threat to Joe Biden. Because of this, and probably because he tried to fuck with a lawyer, his life is now essentially over and young children get to spend the rest of their youths without a father. Am I the only one who thinks this is a bit excessive?

Also, you're living in a pretty fucked up society when your neighbours call the cops because they saw you kissing your kid 'on the lips'. I'm pretty sure my entire family is a bunch of pedophiles by those standards.

edit: totally got the wording wrong from the article. The guy kissed their boy, not his own. Mea culpa, must learn to read.

View on HN

I think the sentencing is completely fair. It's not really about the cracking or emailing threats or any of that. It's about emotional torture. Yes, that's a thing, and it's a serious offense. I can't think of a more traumatic experience for a family than what the victims went through.

Somebody who plans and executes psychological torture on his neighbor for months should spend the rest of his days under some kind of watch. Now, it's debatable whether prison or a mental health institution is the correct choice here… but that's besides the point. Fact is, he had some seriously psychopathic tendencies, and society is much better off with him off its streets.

While I agree that emotional torture is a terrible thing. Still, do you think eighteen years is really fair?

Now you claim the guy has psychopathic tendencies. I won't argue for or against this because I'm not a psychologist. But even if he does, this can never be a reason to lock him up. In western society, people are punished for crimes they commit, not for having a certain psychological profile.

Personally I think it's too short. Intent matters a lot, this person did not just do criminal activity for his own benefit.

No, he did criminal activity in order to make someone else as miserable as possible. This is a special level of heinous and deserves a much more severe sentence.

Seems to expose some different assumptions about the purpose of jail time. To me, it's purely protective: you put violent people in jail to physically incapacitate them until the threat of them causing more violence diminishes as they age. That's the reason most Scandinavian countries give sentences of under 10 years for most crimes, and under 20 years even for murder, because the risk of older people committing violent crimes is very low. So if your goal is to protect society from reoffense, the biggest win is to keep people locked up for their 20s; the 2nd-biggest is people in their 30s; and it gets increasingly pointless beyond that. In fact, giving supervised release instead of jailtime is often warranted, because keeping people tied to their communities / sources of employment is one of the best ways to prevent recidivism, while a few years in jail tends to turn people into hardened criminals (with fewer ties to the non-criminal world, and more ties to criminal gangs).

In this case, 18 years seems pretty clearly excessive from a protective point of view; it's not even clear any jail time at all is warranted, since some sort of probation with supervision of internet use would likely suffice to prevent him from reoffending.

My impression is that many people, especially in the U.S., have a notion of justice that's either more retributive or deterrent based, though. If retributive, that's a pure ethical disagreement. If deterrent, then we might have an empirical disagreement, about which lengths of sentences in fact deter crimes.

By your logic here, there was little point in locking him up at all; he was already 45.

Interestingly, if you read the prosecution's sentencing memo, you see that protection is the core reasoning behind the long sentencing recommendation:

Barry Ardolf is a dangerous man. He uses his technical skills both to inflict harm and to avoid getting caught. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that the victims identified in this case are not his only victims. When Barry Ardolf is released from prison at the end of his term of commitment, he will do something like this again to someone else who has angered him, only this time he will be even more careful. The only way to prevent that is to incarcerate him for a very long time.

I'm absolutely inclined to agree with them. The prosecution earlier notes that even in this case, Ardolf's letter to the judge expresses no remorse for attempting to frame his neighbor for child pornography at his place of work, claiming instead that he had been "victimized" by the neighbor. Ardolf sounds criminally insane to me. I'm glad he was locked up before he did something far worse.

Solely looking at the protective aspect and ignoring an assessment of the chance of recidive, the logical conclusion is that a relatively low sentence is in place. However, I don't think the parent is advocating that only the protective aspect should be considered. After all, not even the Scandinavian countries do that.

Everything after my first sentence is a later edit. I originally commented because the 20's and 30's rule of thumb he suggested didn't ring true to me. But when I read the sentencing memo, I was reminded of his point that protection is a key rational purpose of sentencing and moved to amend my comment.

Are you against punishment?

I really hope the people defending this sentence realize that the average time served in the US for murder is around 4 years, and I hope that they then strenuously believe this is far too short. I've been "emotionally tortured" as much as these folks were (especially given that they had the full support of lawyer's law firm and hired forensics specialists from just about the very start, it appears) and I'd much rather be emotionally tortured than dead.

4 years really? For murder? I would assume life in prison for murder.

You don't mean manslaughter do you?

The first page of Google results will suggest that for second degree murder, depending on the state, sentences bounce around between 10-20 years. Obviously, if you deliberately plan and execute the killing of your neighbor as an adult, you are probably never leaving prison; first degree sentences are extremely long, averaging more than twice the sentence handed down in this case.

The time served might be much less then the sentence.

I'd much rather be emotionally tortured than dead

I guess you're in the minority? I'm right there with you though.

Too short? I'm flabbergasted. 18 years is an incredibly, incredibly long time, in which both you and the world change tremendously. Suppose that after 2 years someone has come to regret their actions and want to be a regular 'productive member of society'. Do we really want to put someone like that away for another 16 years? What good does it do? Does it make society safer? In terms of revenge, 2 years or 18 years hardly matters and neither is good enough. What would be enough: 25... 33... 40... Or does only death fit the crime?

How about 6 years, with compulsory therapy?

It is too short. This hacker tried to get his neighbor labeled as a sex offender and a terrorist, on top of trying to ruin his marriage, family, and get him fired. All of those things, especially the first two, would have screwed up the rest of that lawyer's life.

The hacker tried to take this guy's life away. 18 years in prison pales in comparison to the damage he tried to do. If this hacker received a slap on the hand, it'd be no better than not punishing women for false accusations of rape. If you try to ruin someone's life on purpose, you deserve to have your life ruined. If the hacker finds new meaning to life while incarcerated, that's what parole hearings are for.

His neighbor had done the same. They told the police he'd kissed their 4-year-old son. That's a reason for a grudge (unless it was true ... but we don't really know)

> unless it was true

According to the sentencing memo [0], he confessed to it (page 5, and included in the guilty plea on page 24). The 4 year old also said it happened (page 5). He also coached his child to give false testimony about it (page 26). I'd say we know it happened.

[0] http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/ardolf...

And... it wasn't a one-off prank. He did it repeatedly, with a long planned campaign. And wasn't afraid to do this to other neighbors as well. Though, with the reach of wifi, I'm not sure how many neighbors he could do - 2-3?

You're saying that taxpayers should shoulder the burden of jailing this guy for 20+ years just to slake your desire for revenge?

This event, while unpleasant, is not particularly heinous. He hasn't stolen their retirement funds, burned down their house, or killed their pets. Emotional damage is an issue and there should be some penance (not necessarily jail), but 'much more than 18' years? That's just blind frothing vengeance - and there's already enough wrong with the US penal system brought about by blind thirst for retribution.

If you want some accounts of heinous things people do to each other, read a few accounts of what's happening in the Congo. Emotional harassment pales in comparison.

Deliberately, carefully, and persistently attempting to wreck someone else's life in order to punish them for calling the cops after you accost their toddler is a serious crime.

I don't know what genocide in Africa has to do with the justice system in Minnesota.

"a serious crime" by your definition requires imprisonment of "much more than 18 years"?

As for genocide in Africa, I don't know why you ignored the rest of my points in an attempt to paint my position as one of irrelevance.

This was in Minnesota? Heavens, all the more reason 18 years is a little crazy. The state is insolvent for chrissake!

Did he accost their toddler, or did the toddle go wandering into his house, and he carried him out? I don't know. But if they did lie about the "kissing a 4-year-old", the neighbors are as bad as him.

He confessed to kissing the 4 year old on the lips, both before and during the prosecution. So: kind of a silly "if".

A few weeks ago, one of the neighbours' (don't know which, just that they live somewhere near me) 4 or 5 year old girls ran into my house, up the stairs and into one of the rooms before I could blink (she was chasing the cat).

Lucky for me, kids running around unsupervised is pretty normal here and nobody think anything of this. I thought it was a little weird because, as a kid, I was taught not to go into strangers houses, but apparently its not so strange here.

Of course, I didn't carry her out of my house or anything, I just put the cat out so she could play with it outside.

First off, this guy committed plenty of crimes. He threatened the life of the Vice President, he committed wire fraud, he distributed child pornography, he stole mail (a federal offense).

Second, for those claiming that this guy got nailed to the wall because his victim was an attorney: maybe, but think about what his actions could have caused if the victims were less well situated? If the husband's employer hadn't believed him, and hadn't paid for a detective service, he would have been up a creek without a paddle when the Secret Service showed up at his house.

This is terrorism, plain and simple -- making people feel unsafe where they live and work.

I was with you right up until you called it terrorism. The point of terrorism is political change through fear, this guy is just an asshole.

So you just have to severly emotionally abuse someone and that's terrorism?

I guess that means AQ don't have to set the bar so high.

Yes this was a combination of criminal acts, but calling it terrorism is nothing short of hyperbole.

> So you just have to severly emotionally abuse someone and that's terrorism?

Well, if you severly emotionally abuse they, you know, feel terrified.

I guess homeland security should be called in every time someone feels terrified.

That would be recursive.

"He threatened the life of the Vice President,"

Oh my. The poor defenseless president. Besides, you're missing the point - he was impersonating a fictional character threatening the life of the Vice President.

"He distributed child pornography". Come on.

Has nothing to do with "emotional torture". His victim could have been utterly destroyed for life by his actions, and not in an emotional way, but in a very real way.

I find it very unlikely the harassing went on for months before the victim had to talk to his bosses about what was going on. I'm pretty sure I'd have to explain myself pretty much the same day, if not minute, if co-workers started receiving lewd emails from me. Once he did that, they hired some professionals and I imagine they figured out pretty quickly what was going on. So I highly doubt there was much time between the start of the harassment to the detection of the culprit.

Once the found the 'problem', they could have just changed the encryption to WPA2, optionally punched the guy in the face, and be done with it. If the actions of the hacker were so utterly horrible that they could have destroyed the victim's life, why would they let him continue doing it for months? It appears they kept monitoring the network until they had enough evidence to put the guy in jail.

I don't think getting your WiFi hacked will destroy your life, but eighteen years in jail will.

I think this guy was trying to destroy his neighbor's life, and that his plan to do so was plausible. I think you are getting caught up in the "wifi" stuff.

The hacker tried to get this lawyer labeled as a sex offender and a terrorist. That would, in a quite literal way, ruin the lawyer's life.

Not everyone has the resources or technical know-how to understand and log what was happening. Attempting to ruin someone's life is what is on trial here, not hacking wifi. It wasn't the first time the hacker did something like this either.

I can't think of a more traumatic experience for a family than what the victims went through.

How about breaking into their house at night, tying them up in the basement, and starving them to death?

If I had to pick between someone using my WiFi access point to download child porn or being physically tortured to death, I would pick the WiFi thing. That doesn't mean it's OK to do what the guy in this article did, but it's not the worst thing that can happen to someone, either.

really? you can't think of a more traumatic experience?

Put yourself in his shoes. He had been accused of being a pedophile. He responded by trying to frame his neighbor as a pedophile, a philanderer, and a threat to national security.

Psychopathic tendencies? He was obviously angry, but he probably felt justified in his anger. In his eyes, he was just getting a bit of his own back.

He was offered 2 years. He rejected it, claiming (apparently falsely!) that he was innocent of the charges. Having been caught seemingly red handed, the prosecution proceeded to throw the book at him.

This is exhibit A in "The People vs The American Justice System". Take a plea bargain and get two years, go to trial and get eighteen. Where's the justice in that? Either people are getting away with paltry amounts of jail time for pleading guilty, or they're being punished with long sentences for using their right to a trial. A ninefold difference in sentencing goes far beyond a proportionate incentive to avoid spurious trials. Even if this defendant was abusing the court, is sixteen years a fair punishment for wasting the court's time?

The original plea deal offering of 2 years is what I find appalling; it smacks of a prosecutor who just wants to get the case off his desk as soon as possible. Read the whole sentencing memo; the 239 month recommendation seems entirely reasonable to me.

He was offered 2 years, after being caught red handed orchestrating a many-months-long criminal campaign against his neighbors in retaliation for a molestation charge he confessed to. He took it to trial instead. In the process, he violated the terms of his release from confinement. He coached family witnesses in writing to lie about the circumstances of his offense. He told the court directly that the actual victims in the case were attempting to frame him. He was given by the court an opportunity to write an "Acceptance of Responsibility" statement as a means of mitigating his sentence; in it, he told the sentencing judge that he was the victim.

As a result, the prosecution wrote:

At every turn, the defendant has chosen not to accept responsibility for his actions and to obstruct justice. This Court has had a firsthand opportunity to see defendant’s dangerousness, lack of remorse, and disregard for the law. A lengthy sentence is needed to prevent the defendant from engaging in any further harm.

Defendant is dangerous. Defendant is remorseless.

Ardolf's own actions in front of the court suggest that he's a psychopath. What judge is going to go easy on someone like that?

What gets me here is, if "wifi hacking" wasn't involved, this bind to the "Your Rights Online" neuroreceptors in HN reader brains and we wouldn't be arguing it. This is a crazy person who has thankfully been removed from public circulation. Forget about the wifi stuff. Total red herring.

I have to agree with you on this one.

This isn't a case where someone had the book thrown at them because they did magical computer stuff. This is a case where someone got the book thrown at them because they were a dangerous asshole that went around ruining people's lives and was good enough at it that he would not have been caught most of the time.

This clearly isn't his first offense, he has no remorse, does not accept responsibility, is a proven liar, and seems very likely to do all of this again. If I have any qualms, it's the fact that 239 months of prison is very expensive, but I'm not sure that there are any better solutions in a case like this. After all, I would expect him to target the judge and other court staff after something like this, for example, in addition to the people he was already trying to frame.

Any reference to where he pleaded guilty to a charge of molestation (I presume this is the kissing incident)?

He sounds like a psychopath, but if he was labelled a paedophile in the neighbourhood based on the statement of a 4 year old (or did the parents witness the incident?), then it's understandable there was retaliation.

The article clearly says that the 4-year-old's mother saw the incident, for what it's worth.

The sentencing memo says that after the mother saw the incident, he confessed to it. During the trial, he also confessed to it.

Where in the article? Not in the one this post links to.

In a PDF linked from the article, it is stated that the mother had her back to Ardolf, and heard a "wet kiss."

Ardolf then admitted to the father of the child he kissed him on the lips.

My point is that accusing your new neighbour of being a paedophile on that basis could, if innocent of the charges, be a strong motivator for revenge.

He also confessed to it under oath on the stand, and later attempted to coach his son to lie about being present and not seeing it.

The sentence was not handed out for a single crime, but for multiple crimes. Some of those crimes -- threat to kill -- are taken very seriously indeed.

Also I imagine the judge will have taken account of the accused's pattern of behaviour and modified the sentence to reflect the fact that he is clearly a menace to society.

> threat to kill taken very seriously indeed

But if he's impersonating someone while making the threat "as them" specifically to get them in trouble, is it really a threat to be taken seriously? It can't possibly indicate harmful intent, as he knows the person he's impersonating isn't going to do anything. That said, if he'd robbed a bank wearing a Nixon mask[1], it's still a robbery. But that's an action, while the first is expression of intent--intent that does not exist.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon_mask

Depending on your jurisdiction, uttering a threat to kill is a strict liability crime. Mens rea is found by evidence of the act.

(IANAL, TINLA).

You are not arguing that he did not intentionally make the threat, are you? You're just saying the threat wasn't serious. I don't really know how you can be sure of that, but it doesn't really matter - it was a very clear death threat taken very seriously.

I'm not a legal expert so please correct me if I'm wrong, but afaik the US system essentially treats individual charges as individual crimes when it comes to sentencing. Note that a lot of other legal systems don't have such clear cut 'stacking' of sentences, because there is considerable overlap between the charges they correspond to.

Legal details aside, my question was more about whether it's morally right to sentence someone to eighteen years for the crimes described in the article?

I agree with you. 18 years is ridiculous for what the guy actually did.

I think part of the reason is they wanted to send a message. Not the one you'd think: "Don't terrorize your neighbors" or "Don't threaten politicians". The message is "You'd better take the plea bargain. Or else." Prosecutors don't have time to take every case to trial, so they threaten everybody with 100 little charges that add up to 150 years in jail. Then they offer you a deal, where you plead guilt to some subset and spend enough years in jail to satisfy the government.

It's grossly unfair. Nobody knows how many innocent people are wasting away in prison because they didn't want to risk spending the rest of their lives there.

Threat to kill and perversion of justice are extremely serious crimes. So too is being a menace to society. And so too is maliciously causing distress.

The sentence is up to the judge, within the limits set by the legislature. The prosecution can push for a plea bargain by quoting scary totals, but the judge decides whether the worst case comes about.

Of course, IANAL/TINLA etc.

> Threat to kill and perversion of justice are extremely serious crimes. So too is being a menace to society. And so too is maliciously causing distress.

Killer band and album names there.

Surely threats to kill should attract less punishment than actual killing, though.

In general they do; the exact terms vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. (IANAL, TINLA).

>The sentence is up to the judge, within the limits set by the legislature.

That's not necessarily true, or rather the legislature often sets minimum sentences. If you're brought up on enough charges you can end up in jail for life with no discretion on the part of the judge.

With all those extremely serious crimes, how many people got hurt? And remember, if he'd taken the original deal he would have been out in two years.

> With all those extremely serious crimes, how many people got hurt?

Several families at least had their livelihoods directly undermined.

I can't speak to plea bargaining, it seems to be a largely American feature.

(IANAL, TINLA)

That would mean: Just because you did not succeed in murdering someone, you are allowed to go free?

He didn't try to murder anyone. He made some threats, and he tried to get his neighbor in trouble with the law.

I'm not saying he should go free. But I am saying 18 years is incredibly harsh in light of the crime.

He did not threaten to kill. I disagree with your definition of extremely serious.

To me, this seems like harassment, worthy of a slap on the wrist. If he does it again, take away his computer privileges or something. But prison time? You have to be kidding me.

> He did not threaten to kill.

He was the author of an email threatening to kill the vice-president -- he is responsible for 'uttering' the words. In many jurisdictions that is the complete crime (strict liability).

Furthermore he aimed to pervert the course of justice by framing someone else.

Both these crimes are considered serious pretty much everywhere. Judges tend to look unflatteringly on perversion in particular.

(IANAL, TINLA).

To me, this seems like harassment, worthy of a slap on the wrist.

Had his plan succeeded, the victim would be in prison for the rest of his life on the combination of kiddie porn and threatening the vice president. That's way beyond "harassment".

From the article:

> The subject line of one e-mail read: “This is a terrorist threat! Take this seriously.” “I swear to God I’m going to kill you!,” part of the message to Biden said.

Not sure why you think he didn't threaten to kill. Seems he was found guilty.

Many jurisdictions have a great many crimes which are very similar, differing only in small details. These are written into law because nobody likes someone getting 'off on a technicality'.

For example, suppose I kill somebody. What will I be charged with?

Depending on the case, I might be up for murder, manslaughter or in some places "dangerous act leading to death". Each of these crimes has a different complexion and different punishments; the effect is that if I maliciously or carelessly hurt someone I could easily be hooked on one of them. Quite often the prosecution might charge me with all of them at once, then drop charges as the case unfolds.

However, for those crimes which make it to the "finish line", judges may be in a position to consider them separately or jointly. It varies wildly depending on jurisdiction. Supposing this was a jurisdiction where crimes must be sentenced in isolation, a high total is not impossible.

My gut feeling is that the judge has selected the higher end of potential jail terms because of the pattern of malice this individual has repeatedly displayed. One function of imprisonment is to remove the ability to cause more harm to society.

(IANAL, TINLA)

Thanks for the clarification!

In a previous life I was a law student. If you're in a "code" jurisdiction, criminal law is about as straightforward as it gets. Pretty much the opposite end from torts.

Nope, there are often sentence enhancements when there are multiple crimes involved or if the defendant has prior convictions. Very common.

>Legal details aside, my question was more about whether it's morally right to sentence someone to eighteen years for the crimes described in the article?

Posting child porn and death threats? Yeah, that's worth 18 years.

You're oversimplifying.

'Posting child porn' for example turns out to be 'posting a single picture of a pubescent girl having sex with two young boys'. Note that we have not seen the picture, so the girls' age can be anywhere between 10-17 (age range according to Wikipedia article on puberty). Note also that this picture was selected for shock value, and no other child pornography was reported found on the guys' computer.

The death threat was to a prominent politician who probably gets such emails on an hourly basis by cooks from all around the country.

So basically what you're saying is that eighteen years is appropriate punishment for being a 4chan troll?

In other words, "posting child porn" for example turns out to be "posting child porn". Full disclosure: I stopped reading here and downvoted you. I've also immediately revised my (previously more measured) take on all your previous comments.

In the case of a 17-year-old, are you really suggesting that this person - who has the full right to have actual sex with whoever they choose (bar perhaps a guardian) pretty much all over the developed world - that a photo of this person is just as much 'child porn' as a 10-year-old?

The world is shades of grey, not the black and white you're demanding.

Ardolf named this electronic image “Matt’s Kids.jpg.” See Govt. Tr. Ex. 5-2. This is an image of known child pornography identified as the “Sabban series,” where the children depicted have been identified. It has been confirmed that at the time the photographs were created, the children were minors. See Govt. Tr. Ex. 81. The “Sabban series” of child pornography was created by two individuals in Brazil, who sexually abused and photographed three children over a several-year period.

That doesn't invalidate what's been said here. What you quote is not in the main article. And while most probably this series that you quote involved younger minors, it doesn't actually mention their age range - and 17 is still a 'minor'.

inoop was presenting an opinion based on the information in the main article and you stomped on him and effectively claimed that everything he's ever said is now suspect.

How many times has it happened that an article has used weasel words to paint an unflattering picture of someone, only for a more balanced view to come out later? inoop is asking people to look at the information that was presented rather than fire off a buzzword knee-jerk response.

If you have more information, then present it before judging, don't judge people on their opinions that may change with your secretly held information.

He's quoting from http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/ardolf...

Page 8 describes the photo in detail. It's not a 17 year old, "barely a minor". It's a prepubescent girl and two prepubescent boys.

I'm quoting the publicly available sentencing memo for this case.

Apparently HN doesn't allow me the right of reply here to either lotharbot nor tptacek. Weird.

Anyway, the response is the same to both of you: I do not believe that either of you pore through every link in an article, reading all the way through before commenting. Particularly with court notes. No-one does. You're making a post-hoc defense.

If not reading the court notes linked in that article before commenting is worthy of having your credibility and history derided, then my bet is that pretty much every single commenter in this whole thread is guilty of this.

Also, lothar: your reference describes the picture of being of a prepubescent girl, which is different to the wired article which references a pubescent girl. From the context of inoop's comment, he's obviously going from the linked wired article and not the sub-linked court notes.

edit: sorry, swapped the last two paragraphs, 'if not...' was not meant to follow on from 'also...'

I can't speak for Thomas. For myself, I don't believe I've said anything that qualifies as deriding anyone's credibility or history (or trying to make a post-hoc defense for myself). I'm just trying to bring facts to light -- because a relevant issue was brought up, I took the time to pore through details I otherwise would not have.

In short, the issue brought up was that the sentence seems excessive given that "child porn" could mean a picture of 17 year olds. Having done the research, it's clear that the picture was of much younger children, and that the length of the sentence was due to several factors beyond the "child porn" issue. So the ancestor post to this raised a valid question, but was ultimately wrong on the relevant facts.

This is a bit rude. The grandparent's post is not stupid - he has a valid point.

I respectfully disagree.

See if you can get around to reading the last line though.

Grumpy today, are we? I would've thought someone like you would be able to go beyond "omfg, kiddie pr0n", but apparently possessing a single image that is legally child pornography (we'll probably never know what the actual contents were, so we can see if we agree with that legal judgment), that he may very well have downloaded from an a place like 4chan, where it was publicly available, is enough to morally justify sentencing someone for possession of child pornography?

I think every owner of a stash of pornographic material is guilty then.

Irregardless of whether you agree with the above argument, completely 'revising your opinion of me' for a single argument in a single case where you are conversing via a rather incomplete/miscommunication prone medium like this, seems rather like overreacting.

No, I'm not going to get past someone intentionally keeping and trafficking in child pornography. If anything, I'm perturbed that I've given you the impression that I'd be sanguine about it.

When I read someone suggesting that the state has sentenced someone abusively, then later find a comment where that same person says posting actual images of child pornography isn't a big deal --- or, as I found even further downthread, that physically molesting a child is something that warrants a stern conversation rather than police intervention --- I'm inclined to believe that person has very little to say about sentencing that I am going to find reasonable.

You are free to your own opinion about this case, and about 'inoop's comments.

> I think every owner of a stash of pornographic material is guilty then.

You think wrong. There are two crucial differences between the average porn owner and the vindictive neighbor.

The relevant laws, 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, 2252A, and others[0], repeatedly use the word "knowingly". The vindictive neighbor did in fact knowingly possess and distribute a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexual activity. A person who has a large stash of porn that happens to include a pic of a 17 year old that they don't know about is legally safe.

In particular, the law allows a person in possession of fewer than 3 pieces of material to make an "affirmative defense"[1] if, upon discovering it, they either take reasonable steps to destroy the material or immediately report its existence to law enforcement. So the average owner of a stash of porn, upon discovering kiddie pics in his stash, can avoid all liability and culpability merely by destroying it or turning it over to the cops. The vindictive neighbor did neither.

I would argue both of these legal points are also moral points -- knowing you possess child pornography, and knowingly keeping it, is a whole different offense than accidentally possessing it and then destroying it or turning it over to the cops when you realize the situation.

EDIT: as to the broader point as to whether the sentence is justified, you can read the government's entire argument[2]. It describes the photo in detail on page 8; the individuals depicted are prepubescent, not "almost legal". It also describes the rest of the case; note that the sentence is not merely a child porn sentence, but includes identity theft, threats to the VP, violation of his initial release conditions, lying under oath, coaching witnesses, etc. The government explains the length of sentence starting on page 27.

[0] http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?L...

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

[2] http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/ardolf...

> And this gets him eighteen years in prison? In most countries you get eighteen years for murder.

I imagine things work the same way all over the world. The prosecutor files every charge imaginable and then requests maximum time during the sentencing hearing. That's his job.

The defendant's lawyer then does his job and mitigates the damage.

Now, if the defendant is stupid enough to represent himself, pleads guilty to the charges, or doesn't put up much of a fight during sentencing ... well ... you end up with this.

Neither the judge nor the prosecutor have a responsibility to be nice. I have a feeling that they especially didn't have any desire to be nice considering what he did.

On top of all of that, kiddie porn is a big deal here ... I'd imagine the majority of the time is for that.

> if the defendant is stupid enough to represent himself, pleads guilty to the charges, or doesn't put up much of a fight during sentencing ... well ... you end up with this.

In this case, the defendant was even stupider. He plead guilty, withdrew his plea, lied during testimony, coached witnesses, and violated the conditions of his release. See pages 22-27 of http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/ardolf...

But by that argument someone who carried out a sustained stalking campaign against someone might actually be guilty of just standing in places. I don't think it's necessarily the mundane details of what they actually did that should be the only determinant of the severity of their punishment. Of course this doesn't mean that an injured party should be able to claim emotional distress from any old thing.

from the article, it was the hacker kissing the kid on the lips, not the family...

Yes, and I'm saying that that does not make him a pedophile. I see fathers kissing their young kids on the lips all the time, maybe it's a European thing? Unless he's using tongue I don't see a reason to call the cops.

So you'd be fine with a complete stranger kissing your child on the lips?

No, you don't have to be ok with it. I'd just not hang around someone like that. Calling the cops seems excessive.

Like I noted in my original post, I read the article wrong and thought the guy kissed his own son rather than the family's. So my bad on that one.

As to your question, I guess it depends on the person. I wouldn't mind if it was a women for example. If it's a guy, I'd at least go have a chat with him. If I wasn't happy with the situation I'd ask him not to kiss my boy like that or tell my kid to avoid him. I'd certainly not assume he's a child molester right off the bat and call the cops.

By having a chat and asking an adult not to molest your children, you are very likely offering a pedophile a free crack at someone else's less well-attended kid. In reality, people who molest children are deeply sick, almost certainly not restricting their attention to your children, very likely have accosted victims before this one, and will very likely go on to commit further offenses.

If one of my neighbors saw something like this happen and let it slide, I'd be absolutely furious with them.

Though I've never faced the situation myself, I know litigation is expensive, and your own family comes first. I can't say for sure that I'd leap at the opportunity to go to court.

I wouldn't mind if it was a women for example. If it's a guy, I'd at least go have a chat with him

What a world we live in. Not that I disagree with you, but what a world.

Don't forget, most child sexual abuse [astonishingly] comes from within the family.

He wasn't kissing his own son...

You got it wrong. He did not get that sentence for hacking. He got it for this:

> Barry Ardolf has demonstrated by his conduct that he is a dangerous man. When he became angry at his neighbors, he vented his anger in a bizarre and calculated campaign of terror against them.

The calculated and "with intent" part and showing no remorse make it weigh so heavy; he did all that calculated and with full intent of seeing his neighbor going to prison probably for life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com