Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jonathan James

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 125 posts

Re: Jonathan James

#111

Post by rm999 »

doktrin wrote: post #44
rwmj wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gonzalez stole real money, I'm sure causing many people a great deal of trouble and distress. He said in chat logs that he aimed to steal $15 million and retire. It's really not that much different from pickpocketing or bank robbery, except on a much larger scale, and I'm quite happy if pickpockets, bank robbers, insurance scammers, and other criminals get serious time. This is quite different from Aaron Swartz who w…

Oh, I'm certainly not arguing Gonzalez should not have been prosecuted. What I am reacting to quite specifically is the notion that "winning" a higher sentence is somehow a goal in and of itself. Having worked quite closely with the legal community over the last half decade, I have to say that the mercenary attitude many hold continues to jar me.

The US uses an adversary law system, where a side 'wins'. It's basically a competition rather than an organized attempt at finding a 'truth'. As twisted as it is to frame a legal system as a form of combat, it usually ends up being pretty fair.

>Most legal experts agree that, in the long run, the adversary system results in societal benefits that outweigh its inherent shortcomings. By allowing all sides of a controversy to be heard, the system protects against abuse of power, and forces those with the most at stake to focus on the issues in dispute.

(from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Adversary+Syst...)

Re: Jonathan James

#112

Post by will_brown »

jellyksong wrote: post #107

I'm not sure we should glorify Jonathan James or even compare him to Aaron Swartz. His "hacking" of the DoD was undeniably illegal, and his sentencing seemed appropriate for his actions. We will never know if he was innocent or not of the TJX case. It's tragic that he killed himself, but, at least to me, his actions seemed on the whole more malicious than Swartz's ever was.

"I'm not sure we should glorify Jonathan James or even compare him to Aaron Swartz."

I just posted the Wiki article in no way did I glorify him. However, to suggest I am in error to even compare his story to Aaron's is well....an error.

"His "hacking" of the DoD was undeniably illegal, and his sentencing seemed appropriate for his actions."

Illegal is an absolute term, an act is either illegal or not, there are not degrees such as "undeniably illegal." As to your observation that the sentence was appropriate, keep in mind that James was 15 at the time of his alleged hacking and he was the first minor tried by the US federal government. Further, the federal prosecutors (Janet Reno, in particular) used James story as a political gain by threatening James with adult charges carrying more than 10 years, all so they could "prove the Justice Department is willing to get tough on juveniles offenders accused of cyber crime." So James took a plea deal and at 16 was on 6 month house arrest and probation to 18 and he had to stop using computers for recreational use, shit even drunk drivers can drive again.

"It's tragic that he killed himself, but, at least to me, his actions seemed on the whole more malicious than Swartz's ever was."

I only want to address this as devil's advocate, but in terms of James' act being malicious, James acquired $1.7 million in NASA software, he did publish it or sell it, rather he did it to learn more coding. Further, he said he only pursued his exploits because he wanted to explore, which seems to be the very opposite of malicious, after all anyone who was malicious and in control of the Space Stations life sustaining systems could surely have caused more damage than copying the code if they were truly malicious. Whereas Aaron breached a system and copied information with the intent to redistribute it in mass to the detriment of the system itself, which fits the very definition of malice. I am in no way justifying anyone's actions and condemning another's actions, simply highlighting that your word choice of malicious really does not seem fitting for James as much as curious, whereas Aaron intended to destroy a system albeit one that many feel unethically controlled the flow of knowledge which should otherwise be open and free. Besides assuming Aaron did have intent and malice toward the system, is he any more legally culpable than say someone who takes bread to feed the hungry where they are otherwise being starved?

Re: Jonathan James

#113

Post by rprasad »

pothibo wrote: post #103
rwmj wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gonzalez stole real money, I'm sure causing many people a great deal of trouble and distress. He said in chat logs that he aimed to steal $15 million and retire. It's really not that much different from pickpocketing or bank robbery, except on a much larger scale, and I'm quite happy if pickpockets, bank robbers, insurance scammers, and other criminals get serious time. This is quite different from Aaron Swartz who w…

"Gonzalez stole real money, I'm sure causing many people a great deal of trouble and distress." I don't think I'll ever agree with this. I have seen this argument brought up times and times again and every time I feel that we miss the point. Stealing money is bad, yes. Does it deserve a similar amount of time as someone who committed a murder? Also, nowadays, people who steal money are stealing money from businesses…

It depends. Did Gonzalez's actions result in anyone committing suicide, or any divorces or families breaking up?

If it did, then it definitely deserves as long a sentence as murder. Indeed, an (attempted) financial crime of this magnitude is frequently worse than murder since it (potentially) has similarly devasting effects on a much wider set of victims.

Re: Jonathan James

#114

Post by rprasad »

zura wrote: post #104
rwmj wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gonzalez stole real money, I'm sure causing many people a great deal of trouble and distress. He said in chat logs that he aimed to steal $15 million and retire. It's really not that much different from pickpocketing or bank robbery, except on a much larger scale, and I'm quite happy if pickpockets, bank robbers, insurance scammers, and other criminals get serious time. This is quite different from Aaron Swartz who w…

Yes, but even for the real money, I think it is too much. For comparison, this guy[1] shot 77 people, but he was sentenced only "21 years and a minimum of 10 years" and he will spend this period in a luxury prison of Norway. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

Europe's sentencing laws are not comparable to U.S. sentencing laws.

In the U.S., that same crime would have resulted in a minimum of life in prison, and possibly would have resulted in the death penalty.

Re: Jonathan James

#115

Post by rprasad »

doktrin wrote: post #13
jeremymims wrote: post #4

Looks like Steve Heymann has a history of this: "The case was picked up by Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Heymann in Boston, the cybercrime prosecutor who won a record 20-year prison stretch for TJX hacker Albert Gonzalez. Heymann indicted Aaron on 13 counts of wire fraud, computer intrusion and reckless damage. The case has been wending through pre-trial motions for 18 months, and was set for jury trial on April 1."…

> "who won a record 20-year sentence" I know this is common verbiage, but it's frankly sickening. Do they view their targets as people, or are they merely a collection of scalps?

Generally, the best prosecutors (in the sense of securing convictions) view their targets as trophies to be collected.

This is part of what makes them so "good"--by objectifying the target, they are better able to think purely strategically about how to secure a conviction.

Re: Jonathan James

#116

Post by BCM43 »

Evbn wrote: post #109
_delirium wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a whole lot of information available about Heymann, but what little I can find doesn't make me like him more. Here's something that turned up from 1996, where he tried to get Harvard to authorize warrantless surveillance: Stephen Heymann, deputy chief of the criminal division in the U.S. attorney's office in Boston, wanted Harvard to put an electronic banner on its intranet telling users they were being monitored…

Someone please download it and repost.

http://www.anonpaste.me/anonpaste2/index.php?b18e0b52166f3c1...

In memory of Swartz.

Re: Jonathan James

#117

Post by philwelch »

nitrogen wrote: post #98
philwelch wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point. The point is that you can use plausible sounding justifications to disenfranchise anybody , and once you start that game it'll never be played in good faith. Universal suffrage just works. I also wanted to pry a little into the assumption that people only care about their own well-being and not about anything after their own lifetimes. Actually, people are concerned about the well-being of t…

Elections are won by convincing the "right" people to get out and vote and the "wrong" people to stay home. Disenfranchisement is already happening. I would also argue that concern for one's offspring is not sufficient to know what's best for them, let alone the offspring of others.

> Elections are won by convincing the "right" people to get out and vote and the "wrong" people to stay home. Disenfranchisement is already happening.

Yes, it's bad enough what already happens, but that's hardly an argument for making it worse.

> I would also argue that concern for one's offspring is not sufficient to know what's best for them, let alone the offspring of others

Now you're changing the argument entirely, and not in a very promising direction for you. If it's a question of knowledgeability, you've just undermined your entire scheme to give 13 year olds the vote.

Re: Jonathan James

#118

Post by smsm42 »

jlgreco wrote: post #85
smsm42 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure average 13 year old can't, and doesn't give half rat's ass about it, since average 13 year olds have different interests, but I would be glad to be proven wrong. Any proof? However, more interesting is that you think while you can disenfranchise US citizens at will, somehow you can't change eligibility age for presidency. Where this sudden reverence for tradition comes from, I wonder?

An 13 year old is in what, 8th grade? Probably the only year that most Americans ever spend learning about their own government? When else does the average american learn about their government, if not in school?

Some of Americans read those things called books. You know, on their own volition, without being forced to do it by unionized government workers. Some of them also read magazines, newspapers and such, containing plenty of information. There's also this newfasioned thing called the internets, where they say you can read about stuff too. Of course, I'm not sure how "average" your American has to be - maybe for you, average one is one that only can be taught by a teacher in a coercive mass-production setting and forgets everything he had been taught very soon. I see how you want to increase a number of such people among the electorate - if you other ideas are as harebrained as this one, you need a big supply of short-attention-spanned, never learning, reading averse, infantile electorate to gain any acceptance.

Re: Jonathan James

#119

Post by smsm42 »

w1ntermute wrote: post #72
smsm42 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has nothing to do with fashionable fable about ultraweathy ruining everything. The numbers of ultrawealthy are vanishingly small. They are not those who vote current political class into power and keep them there. They are not those who, knowing about politicians instituting mandatory minimum sentences of tens of years for victimless crimes, did not come to these politicians with tar and feathers but instead gave…

Things are far from being as simple as you make them sound. In a two-party system with extreme gerrymandering and extensive lobbying by the rich, politicians are no longer beholden to the people. People don't blindly support new laws like you say they do. In fact, Congress's approval rating has been in the shitter for a long time. People nowadays vote by figuring out who they dislike the least. But when it comes to r…

What you mean "no longer beholden to the people"? If nobody votes for them, how they get into the office? If people vote for whoever their union leader or "community organizer" or local party hack tells them to vote for - they shouldn't blame "the wealthy" when their lives do not improve. They should blame themselves. Congress approval ratings are in the shitter, yet the chance of an entrenched incumbent to be reelected are still high - even those in the middle of corruption scandals and bribery investigations. Same people get reelected for years, especially in mono-party environments. And people who elect them always blame somebody else for the inevitable failure.

>>>> And you say voters want more people in jail?

If they didn't, politicians would be afraid to talk about more restrictive laws and more criminal prosecutions. For example, racism is despised by a large percentage of US population - at least open, overt racism - and show me one politician that is playing on the national scene and is openly racist? Does not happen. Did the wealthy do it? Nope, the people did. You want to make the problem of over-jailing become better? Make politicians supporting jailing people for minor offenses as popular as racists. No wealth would help them then.

>>>> marijuana was legalized in 2 states this time around.

Yet in California, where anybody can see that anybody willing can smoke like a 19-century locomotive 24hrs a day, legalization proposals still fail. I do not blame abstract "the wealthy" for it, I blame specific people of California being stupid.

BTW, I never said it is "simple". It is insanely complex and insanely messed up, and I have no slightest idea how to fix it. But I know one thing - blaming abstract "wealthy" for problems caused by regular citizens being stupid is not going to fix anything. Adding more stupid to the stupid doesn't make it better.

>>>> The statistics are quite clear regarding the increase in lobbying efforts by the wealthy and by large corporations during the 70s.

So what? Of course, lobbying is the most profitable investment in the known universe. Of course, there will be more of it. But try to think why it is profitable - who gives the politicians the power that they are selling and lobbyists are buying? The answer is - you do. Take it from them, and they'd have nothing to sell, and corporations would have to go and sell directly to you. Less profitable for them (wholesale is always cheaper, and buying power wholesale is not an exception), but better for you. The only thing you have to do is to get rid of the idea that you should give power to politicians so they solve your problems. If you can't - read your book and see what happens. The choice is yours.

Re: Jonathan James

#120

Post by w1ntermute »

smsm42 wrote: post #119
w1ntermute wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things are far from being as simple as you make them sound. In a two-party system with extreme gerrymandering and extensive lobbying by the rich, politicians are no longer beholden to the people. People don't blindly support new laws like you say they do. In fact, Congress's approval rating has been in the shitter for a long time. People nowadays vote by figuring out who they dislike the least. But when it comes to r…

What you mean "no longer beholden to the people"? If nobody votes for them, how they get into the office? If people vote for whoever their union leader or "community organizer" or local party hack tells them to vote for - they shouldn't blame "the wealthy" when their lives do not improve. They should blame themselves. Congress approval ratings are in the shitter, yet the chance of an entrenched incumbent to be reelec…

> What you mean "no longer beholden to the people"? If nobody votes for them, how they get into the office?

Have you noticed how few people actually vote? When there are only two parties and neither is particularly appealing, people just don't vote.

> I do not blame abstract "the wealthy" for it, I blame specific people of California being stupid.

Then you would be wrong. The wealthy support marijuana being illegal. It results in increased revenue for the alcohol and tobacco industries, increased revenue for the for-profit privatized prison industry, and it results in more money for government contractors that get funneled money via DEA contracts.

The wealthy are in better placed to get their policies in place than the poor, because they can influence politicians even when there aren't elections coming up. The only chance the poor have of influencing politics is when there's an election coming up, and those elections aren't structured such that they're very effective.

> But try to think why it is profitable - who gives the politicians the power that they are selling and lobbyists are buying? The answer is - you do.

No, they do not. You still fail to understand the basic problems with our current electoral system, which limits us to two parties. When there is no competition in the electoral system, politicians can be influenced in other ways.

Post reply on HN