Anonymous Hacker Gets 10 Years

wabbitseason said:
I don't get the hate directed at anonymous on this site. Most of their aims are pretty reasonable, and they usually take the rational side of issues. Hate scientology? Defend girls who've been raped by exposing their rapists? I have no problem with anonymous.

This is an outrageous sentence.
Click to expand...

Okay, I understand some of the appeal of Anonymous.
It's a way to flex one's "muscles", even if you're a tubby, flabby basement-dweller.
You have a way to push a vigilante agenda which will, hopefully, be well received and actually help people.

The reality is, that vigilantes can be diverted in numerous ways. And sometimes, their help is not needed, nor desired.

Plus, the reality is, only a VERY small subsect of the group has the pull or skills to actually make something go off. And a few of them haven't learned that simply because one CAN do a thing doesn't necessarily follow that they SHOULD do that thing.

There's also the fact that they can bite off WAYYYY more than they can chew, and set off unforeseen (and highly negative) consequences. Some of which actually HURT other people.

Take that aborted swipe at mexican drug cartels.
All the cartels did was take people hostage and threaten to kill them if Anonymous did anything.

For the rest, it's a bunch of idiots who use it as an excuse to be semi-social and wear a silly Guy Fawkes mask (for which certain large corporations get a nice dividend).
 
I wouldn't go so far as to say that P_I.

But hacking is the least of the things that Hammond did. And intent is at the heart of this matter.
 
This guy fully deserved 10 years. He is a repeat criminal. Also it was stupid of him to steal CC information I mean seriously did he think he can get away with that especially when he is already on parole? Obviously 2 years of time was not enough to change him. He had a chance to become a normal member of society. All these "edgy" rebels on this site who think he is a hero are just as dumb he stole CC information. You wouldn't think he was a hero if he stole yours...Idiots.
 
wabbitseason said:
I don't get the hate directed at anonymous on this site. Most of their aims are pretty reasonable, and they usually take the rational side of issues. Hate scientology? Defend girls who've been raped by exposing their rapists? I have no problem with anonymous.

This is an outrageous sentence.
Click to expand...

I do have problems, because I live in a democratic nation with laws. If any vigilante can break any law as he pleases based on his own personal whims, well, that's no different from terrorists like al qaeda. Worse, really, because at least we have the right and the ability to change the laws if we deem them to be undesirable through a legal procedure. "Activists" who defend illegal actions discredit democracy and social changes that they claim to support.
 
Chas said:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that P_I.

But hacking is the least of the things that Hammond did. And intent is at the heart of this matter.
Click to expand...

It always is when it suits your agenda, isn't it.
 
maverikv said:
The judge's husband's law firm was a client of Stratford and a victim of this hack. I wonder if that had anything to do with this sentence.
Click to expand...
Well..That would qualify for conflict of interest.
Whatever happened to Justice?
"There is no Justice,It's just us" -Richard Pryor
 
Chas said:
Where, EXACTLY, was it said that Sabu fed him the vulnerability?
And since Jeremy was the one who broke into Stratfor, how did *Sabu* "feed him" the credit card numbers?
Click to expand...

Sabu fed him the credit card numbers AND the Plesk 0day. Google it.


Chas said:
And you know he didn't...how?

Plus there's the fact that using someone else's credit cards to buy YOURSELF something is basically saying "I live *here* and am too dumb to live. Come and arrest me now."
Click to expand...

Because I actually read up on it to get the facts before coming here to post about it? Maybe you should try it. And do you really think people who use stolen CC's ship stuff to their house? Maybe you should read up about how credit card fraud works too, smart guy.

Chas said:
Jesus "Greater offense get less" "Greater offenses get less". Sure! On a FIRST TIME BASIS! Why can't some of you people wrap your heads around that he's getting such a long sentence, at least partially, because it's a second offense? Seriously! CLUE!
Click to expand...

Do you think capitalizing words makes your point any more effective? What is your point anyway (other than "fuck him, I hope he rots in a cell")?
 
damicatz said:
He has demonstrated a remarkable and continued lack of respect for private property as well as people who have political opinions that differ from his. It is very rare that I agree with the feds on anything but ten years is an appropriate sentence.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? No one in our government has any respect for people who have political opinions that differ from theirs. and none of them has any respect for peoples private property. How come our congressmen are not in jail?
 
HFBallad said:
I do have problems, because I live in a democratic nation with laws. If any vigilante can break any law as he pleases based on his own personal whims, well, that's no different from terrorists like al qaeda. Worse, really, because at least we have the right and the ability to change the laws if we deem them to be undesirable through a legal procedure. "Activists" who defend illegal actions discredit democracy and social changes that they claim to support.
Click to expand...

Ok, first of all you DO NOT live in a democratic country. America does not have democracy. Try going in front of the white house and exercise your freedom of speech by screaming s*it about the president. See where democracy gets you.

Try repeatedly questioning the actions of the government and promoting these views in public. That isn't going to end very well.

You are saying that if any vigilante will break laws as he pleases we are not going to end up in a very good place. But the govt. is constantly breaking these same laws as if they don't exist at all. How is that just?
 
dgz said:
It always is when it suits your agenda, isn't it.
Click to expand...

What agenda?

I've already made it clear I have a personal distate for Hammond and disagree with his methods.

I also have ethical issues with compromising systems that don't belong to me "just because", and I have massive ethical issues with theft of data (especially financial data).

Let's be clear here. If this was some kid fiddling around looking at stuff who accidentally winds up compromising a system? I'm inclined to look at that VERY leniently. Hell, I'm even inclined to be lenient for someone who actively breaks into a system to prove a vulnerability.

That isn't what happened here.

The whole "theft" part is what has a lot of people's hackles up.
That and the vandalism push this into a completely different realm.

This is why intent counts for a lot.
 
schmuckley said:
Well..That would qualify for conflict of interest.
Whatever happened to Justice?
"There is no Justice,It's just us" -Richard Pryor
Click to expand...

That, and it was determined that all they got out was an already publicly available e-mail address for the judge's husband.
 
DarkStar02 said:
Sabu fed him the credit card numbers AND the Plesk 0day. Google it.
Click to expand...

Right after I finish googling "Flat Earth" that some other internet "expert" told me about.

Because I actually read up on it to get the facts before coming here to post about it? Maybe you should try it. And do you really think people who use stolen CC's ship stuff to their house? Maybe you should read up about how credit card fraud works too, smart guy.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the import of what I said. Then again, you're interested in "winning" this discussion. So I'm not going to waste my time explaining it.


Do you think capitalizing words makes your point any more effective? What is your point anyway (other than "fuck him, I hope he rots in a cell")?
Click to expand...

I thought my point was quite clear. That you're at all uncertain about what it is means you quite simply haven't been reading. You've been reacting.

Have fun with that.
 
ibex333 said:
Are you serious? No one in our government has any respect for people who have political opinions that differ from theirs. and none of them has any respect for peoples private property. How come our congressmen are not in jail?
Click to expand...

Ever heard the expression "two wrongs don't make a right"?

Or are you trying to put this guy on the a pedestal because he's just as big of a jackass as most politicians?
 
ibex333 said:
Ok, first of all you DO NOT live in a democratic country. America does not have democracy. Try going in front of the white house and exercise your freedom of speech by screaming s*it about the president. See where democracy gets you.

Try repeatedly questioning the actions of the government and promoting these views in public. That isn't going to end very well.

You are saying that if any vigilante will break laws as he pleases we are not going to end up in a very good place. But the govt. is constantly breaking these same laws as if they don't exist at all. How is that just?
Click to expand...

The problem here is that people like Hammond seldom do anything to actually inconvenience the government, giving quid pro quo. What they normally wind up doing is a lot of collateral damage to people who have little to nothing to do with the government.
 
ibex333 said:
Ok, first of all you DO NOT live in a democratic country. America does not have democracy. Try going in front of the white house and exercise your freedom of speech by screaming s*it about the president. See where democracy gets you.
Click to expand...

Uhm, you know you can do this right and no charges will be filed against you. As long as you are on public property and not trespassing you're free to say whatever you want about the President.

I'm not sure you understand what a Democracy is.
 
DarkStar02 said:
Because I actually read up on it to get the facts before coming here to post about it? Maybe you should try it. And do you really think people who use stolen CC's ship stuff to their house? Maybe you should read up about how credit card fraud works too, smart guy.
Click to expand...

Uhm, maybe you should regard your sources more carefully. Just for shits and giggles I decided to do this this afternoon and Googling Sabu and Hammonds brought up numerous lists, all of which are decidedly biased towards Hammonds. So much so that it is almost an effort of futility to find any sort of sources to back up the claims they offer.

Basically Hammonds support boils down to Hammond claiming he was used by the FBI and a bunch of guys going "OMG HE WAS SET UP OUR GOVERNMENT IS A FRAUD I KNEW IT!!!!!11!!"

Kinda hard to take that sort of evidence seriously.

In this case I think you need to look past that and why and what he was sentenced for. That is the fair thing to do. Hammond has been a repeat offender of numerous crimes, he was let off the hook for many of those crimes. His crimes have become more numerous, larger, and grandiose over the years. The evidence against him came from many of his own words. The sentence is fair and is in line with the crimes he committed.

What do you find legally unfair or unjust in this case?
 
ibex333 said:
Ok, first of all you DO NOT live in a democratic country. America does not have democracy. Try going in front of the white house and exercise your freedom of speech by screaming s*it about the president. See where democracy gets you.

Try repeatedly questioning the actions of the government and promoting these views in public. That isn't going to end very well.

You are saying that if any vigilante will break laws as he pleases we are not going to end up in a very good place. But the govt. is constantly breaking these same laws as if they don't exist at all. How is that just?
Click to expand...

Well, yes, I technically don't live in a democratic nation. I live in a republic. But I thought I got the point across.

We can scream *** about the President in front of the White House. After all, rallies against both the current and former Presidents have been held in front of the WH before.

We can raise questions against the government. Repeatedly. Sometimes to the point of stupidity. Ever turn on Foxnews? Recall the Tea Party?

And when government does break a law, we can hold the government responsible. This doesn't always works, and it's almost never quick and easy. Sometimes, it takes decades. But the ability is there. We have the courts. We have the ability to vote politicians into...and out of... offices. Heck, the current President was voted into the office because America hated the last administration so much.

If you're complaining that "we don't live in a democracy" simply because the government doesn't function exactly as you wish... well, your views (or any individual's views) are not universal, and there always will be conflicting opinions. Wanting to instantly ignore other views and promote one's own is despotic, contrary to democracy.
 
*before anyone points it out, yes, I'm aware that Obama ran against McCain, not Dubya. Usually, when an opposing party wins the WH, it's a sign against the administration (in this case Dubya) in control of the WH and that administration's policies.
 
Climber said:
Uhm, maybe you should regard your sources more carefully. Just for shits and giggles I decided to do this this afternoon and Googling Sabu and Hammonds brought up numerous lists, all of which are decidedly biased towards Hammonds. So much so that it is almost an effort of futility to find any sort of sources to back up the claims they offer.

Basically Hammonds support boils down to Hammond claiming he was used by the FBI and a bunch of guys going "OMG HE WAS SET UP OUR GOVERNMENT IS A FRAUD I KNEW IT!!!!!11!!"

Kinda hard to take that sort of evidence seriously.

In this case I think you need to look past that and why and what he was sentenced for. That is the fair thing to do. Hammond has been a repeat offender of numerous crimes, he was let off the hook for many of those crimes. His crimes have become more numerous, larger, and grandiose over the years. The evidence against him came from many of his own words. The sentence is fair and is in line with the crimes he committed.

What do you find legally unfair or unjust in this case?
Click to expand...

Hammond did do the crime, I don't deny that. The part I find unjust in this case is the US government using Sabu as a tool to accomplish what they couldn't legally accomplish on their own. Sabu got popped and became an FBI informant. He facilitated the hacking of thousands of websites by giving Topiary, Kayla, pwnsauce, palladium, and Anarchaos (Hammond) some pretty serious 0days. The US had them to break into the private networks of foreign governments to upload backdoors and steal information. The lulzsec crew are all technically criminals, sure, but they are also just government pawns in the grand scheme of things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top