11–20 of 176 posts
For context, this guy used to be part of the GNAA. They don't care at all about exposing security holes. His goal probably wasn't to cause some sort of security improvement. Yeah, the punishment was harsh, but this guy isn't exactly a folk hero.
I've seen drunk drivers who kill people get less time.
For context, this guy used to be part of the GNAA. They don't care at all about exposing security holes. His goal probably wasn't to cause some sort of security improvement. Yeah, the punishment was harsh, but this guy isn't exactly a folk hero.
For context, this guy used to be part of the GNAA. They don't care at all about exposing security holes. His goal probably wasn't to cause some sort of security improvement. Yeah, the punishment was harsh, but this guy isn't exactly a folk hero.
I've seen drunk drivers who kill people get less time.
The Steubenville rapists will probably get less time.
If the two guys from Steubenville had been over 18, the sentences would have been considerably higher.
it's ridiculous how a single, cohesive act can be broken apart into individual charges which each has its own punishment independent of the others. it's like sentencing someone for murder to 10 years in prison and another 3 years because the person used an illegally acquired weapon to do it.
One act can certainly have multiple consequences, driving a stolen car through a mall mowing down people and kiosks would entail a lot of charges, even though it would be a "single cohesive act".
That said, I'm not sure about the hacking rule, and I don't know the full details of the 1986 law they are prosecuting under, and whether it has been amended or what amending it needs.
Marcia Hofmann is joining his appeals team, so I suspect this is going to SCOTUS. Normally you pick the most compassionate defendant (like they did in Heller in DC) for a test case. Weev is probably the least sympathetic defendant. But I guess you go to war with the weev you have, not the aaronsw you wanted.
2. Generally, if you are smart, you don't bring wildly unsympathetic defendants to SCOTUS at all (IE you don't go to war over them). There are cases it doesn't matter, but one of the reason we ended up with so many 4th amendment exceptions is, IMHO, because of the habit of bringing really unsympathetic people/facts to SCOTUS back when we had justices like O'Connor.
We have marched, protested, voted and won. Human rights, gay rights, pollution and justice. But it took effort and now the injustices are less obvious, are not next door but a long way away, and so it seems we can stop and rest. But injustice is like entropy - it never rests and so we let the torture be done in our name, we don't mind that the youth of the country are given sentences for looting longer than murderers, we don't shout that companies who leave their virtual doors unlocked should not be upset i they find people inside the building
It's right we should be upset, should write our MP should protest the wrongs - but it just seems lacking
I used to think that the USA had a written condition and so would always defend these things - but it seems that if we stop caring then we stop fighting for the spirit of the law and disappear up out own bottoms arguing over the letter of the amendment.