Hacker Who Helped Expose Steubenville Could Get More Prison Time Than Rapists

http://www.businessinsider.com/anonymous-hacker-deric-lostutter-raided-by-fbi-2013-6

by soleimc • 13 years ago

287 75 13 years ago

Jabbles• 13 years ago

An informative read if you're curious about US sentencing: http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence...;

excerpt: "People reporting on federal criminal justice — whether journalists or bloggers — routinely report on the statutory maximum sentence that a defendant could hypothetically get, an oft-ridiculous figure calculated by taking all the charged crimes and adding up the maximum punishment for each. This is usually followed by some sort of pronouncement that THIS PERSON CHARGED OF MINOR CRIMES FACES MORE JAIL TIME THAN YOU'D GET IF YOU BEAT A TODDLER TO DEATH WITH AN UNCONSCIOUS NUN WHILE RAPING A BLIND LIBRARIAN, or words to that effect."

TallGuyShort• 13 years ago

While that certainly means such stories aren't as serious as they sound, it's still indicative of a pretty messed up sentencing system. Thank you for the link.

tibbon• 13 years ago

Seems to be a strange thing though in our justice system- that seemingly more minor crimes have greater maximum sentences (and sometimes mandatory minimums) than more violent/harmful crimes.

I know it isn't just something we can 'fix' easily, but it does seem to be a bug in the system essentially.

VladRussian2• 13 years ago

there are crimes against the System and crimes against another person(s). Through the history of the human race the former were punished harder than the latter. Jesus for example.

There is a joke in Russia about a person buying a fake money printing device. After discovering that the device itself is a fake (it was loaded with a bit of real money for demo purposes during sale), the buyer reports the fraud to the authorities. As result the seller gets relatively small time for the fraud he committed against the buyer and the buyer gets much bigger time because he tried to commit fraud (ie. intended to print fake money) against the government.

mjn• 13 years ago

It's not just "journalists or bloggers" who do that; the government will often quote the maximum possible when discussing the case as well, in order to intimidate the defendant into a plea bargain.

mpyne4• 13 years ago

The government at least mentions that it's a maximum sentence. There's no other specific number they can quote anyways, it's not like they know what the judge and jury might approve that far ahead of time.

lawnchair_larry• 13 years ago

Yep, which is why it's appropriate to quote the same figures when criticizing the bad behavior of the prosecution.

Even if they won't get the maximum, the number is still significant, because it serves as the anchor for extorting a plea bargain, as well as sentencing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring

mratzloff2• 13 years ago

Here's a summary:

A girl in a high school football-obsessed small town went to a party and was assaulted by football players who later bragged about it on Twitter.

A blogger saw the posts (later deleted) and took screenshots. She tried to get justice for the victim by re-posting these on her blog. For this she was hounded relentlessly in the town and a defamation suit was brought against her.

The players bragged that the coach knew about the accusations and would make them go away.

Two of the football players were later given 1 and 2 year sentences in juvenile detention, largely due to the efforts by people who got involved in bringing this case to a wider audience.

As for the hacker...

I've read the linked article, another article, the accused's webpage, and an article by the blogger who stood up for the rape victim, and I still can't figure out exactly what role, if any, this guy had in this mess.

Esifer• 13 years ago

He (hacker) published pictures first and made video that was on FB page, but other Anon hacked page.

Here is full story with screenshots and video: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/anonymous-rape-s...

SwellJoe2• 13 years ago

"was assaulted by"

was raped by

FTFY. Let's not mince words here. This was not merely assault (which can describe something as mild as a punch or a shove). This was rape, committed by multiple parties, followed by degradation on camera for others to see. And, the girl was so drunk/drugged that she probably should have been seen by a doctor...instead the people around her took it as an opportunity to prey upon her.

mratzloff2• 13 years ago

I meant "sexually assaulted", not simply "assaulted". I didn't omit the word as part of some pro-rape agenda. Anyway, I can't edit it now, unfortunately.

Sexual assault generally means "unwanted penetration" (legally), which includes whatever happened here (unclear exactly from the articles I read).

damoncali5• 13 years ago

When I was in college 20 years ago in Boulder the local feminists would get upset when people didn't say "assualt", or if they modified it with "sexual". I always maintained that assault wasn't as bad as rape or "sexual assault", but they wanted nothing of it.

damoncali5• 13 years ago

A blogger saw the posts (later deleted) and took screenshots. She tried to get justice for the victim by re-posting these on her blog.

By the way, if anyone is ever in this situation, don't do this on behalf of the victim unless they ask you to. It may very well be perceived as a violation. I don't know the specifics here, but in general, this is not the way to help. Tread lightly. Rape victims are often cast aside by the government who cares only about prosecution and little about healing. We need not do the same in misguided attempts to help. Put the victim first.

Dylan16807• 13 years ago

It sounds nice to put the victim's wishes first, until you realize that if the perpetrators aren't handled properly they might go on to victimize more people.

Thank you for bringing up something that needs to be considered, but situations like this are too complex for hard rules.

forgotAgain• 13 years ago

The original Mother Jones story is here: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/kyanonymous-fbi-...

At first, he thought the FBI agent at the door was with FedEx. "As I open the door to greet the driver, approximately 12 FBI SWAT team agents jumped out of the truck, screaming for me to 'Get the fuck down!' with M-16 assault rifles and full riot gear, armed, safety off, pointed directly at my head," Lostutter wrote today on his blog. "I was handcuffed and detained outside while they cleared my house.

imdsm• 13 years ago

I can understand this approach to a drug baron or armed fugitive, but to a hacker? Really 'merica? Way to go killing that fly with a sledge hammer!

gyardley2• 13 years ago

While you never know who's armed and who's not, in these cases they're probably just as worried about the destruction of evidence - a polite knock on the door and an 'excuse me, sir, we're the FBI' might give him time to erase or destroy something.

pyre4• 13 years ago

Pick your explanation:

* They need to justify all of their equipment and training so they make copious use of it.

* They don't know if the person is armed or not, so better safe than sorry when it comes to the lives of agents.

* "It's just standard procedure."

... etc

Ygg22• 13 years ago

I'd say its more like Air to surface fusion missile. I guess information is power and anyone with modicum of information is more dangerous. Weird times.

caycep• 13 years ago

hackers threaten the money of old white guys. they gotta get locked up.

danso• 13 years ago

OK, this sounds pedantic, but "Convicted for Longer"* is not accurate...you're not convicted for a period of time, you're convicted and then sentenced to a period of jail time, or probation.

And of course, as we all know from the Aaron Swartz coverage, "could serve for as long as..." is different than "actually serve a sentence of [xy] ears".

But the most relevant quibble is this: a father who beats these rapists with his fists would also face a longer sentence than these accused rapists (who, according to the OP, faced 1-2 years)...because these convicted offenders were juveniles.

And as much as we want to celebrate extra-judicial vengenance upon convicts, juvenile or not, I think we should be aware that there may be unpleasant consequences when our justice/political system looks the other way upon unlawful actions in which "the ends justified the means".

...because, I mean, isn't that at the core of the NSA controversy that is currently raging in the the other 20 HN threads?

* edit: the original title for this submission was "Hacker...Could Be Convicted for Longer..."

sliverstorm4• 13 years ago

I think we should be aware that there may be unpleasant consequences...

Or as I like to put it, something about having your cake and eating it. We can't demand the administration turn a blind eye here, and rage at that same administration when they turn a blind eye there.

Houshalter• 13 years ago

No one is asking to turn a blind eye, but a ten year sentence is absurd. If they actually get it that is.

tomjen3• 13 years ago

Not only is it pedantic, you are a terrible human for wanting to lock a father who beats up a rapist for longer than the rapist.

These men were old enough to rape, they should be old enough to do the time and if your excuse was that they were juveniles, then just remember that they could (and should have been) charged as adults. Alas the bastards weren't, but that is prosecutal misconduct, not justice.

anigbrowl• 13 years ago

People like you are the reason I would waive my right to a jury trial. You are so caught up in your own bias that it causes you to literally see things that aren't there, like your accusation that danso 'want[s] to lock a father who beats up a rapist for longer than the rapist.'

winter_blue• 13 years ago

I don't think danso was necessarily agreeing with that sentiment — he was just pointing out that the current reality of the justice system would result in such sentencing.

6d0debc071• 13 years ago

========QUOTE==========

But the most relevant quibble is this: a father who beats these rapists with his fists would also face a longer sentence than these accused rapists (who, according to the OP, faced 1-2 years)...because these convicted offenders were juveniles.* *

=======================

These offenders were teenagers. They are not five years old, they know - at least in general terms - what's right and wrong, and they know what will hurt someone. And they did it anyway.

Charging someone as a juvenile ought to be for kiddy-screwup fist fights and stupid kid mistakes, so that some momentary lack of judgement doesn't screw someone's life up, not for raping someone - that's not a momentary mistake.

========QUOTE==========

...because, I mean, isn't that at the core of the NSA controversy that is currently raging in the the other 20 HN threads?

=======================

Not from my point of view, no. The law is going to be selectively enforced - there's nothing you can do about it. And the law is so ridiculously messed up that total enforcement isn't even something desirable. The average person commits, I believe it's 3, felonies a day. The US gov can't even count all the laws anymore. We're all guilty.

That's why you need a system that lets people adjust the application of law for common decency. That's why you need a jury of your peers with the ability to refuse to convict. (Granted, a legal theory that seems relatively unknown these days.)

codezero2• 13 years ago

I imagine that he faces charges, not specifically for crimes committed to out the rapists, but possibly for a number of other illegal activities related to hacking.

That one of his deeds ended up resulting in outing bad people, does not mean that he is always so conscious or on the side of good.

sillysaurus• 13 years ago

Unless more information comes to light, you're just slandering the guy. The assumption at this point is that he was arrested at multiple M16 assault rifle gunpoints because of his involvement in hacking into Jim Parks's fansite. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/01/inside-anony...;

jcromartie• 13 years ago

Because he starred in the video which someone else already admitted to posting.

codezero2• 13 years ago

It's not slander to assume that the law enforcement agency that raided him was acting on credible intelligence of illegal activity. They may be wrong, but I don't see how this is slander. I've made no specific accusations and if you are saying he's implicated in hacking a web site (the link you provided is dead) then that seems to corroborate my assumption.

_bfhp5• 13 years ago

Kill Aaron, put kids in prison for dDOSing... but for god sakes, don't ever try to send a message to potential rapists! That would be oppressing men everywhere!

rosser• 13 years ago

This is one of the most reprehensible things I've heard in I don't even know how long.

Ygg22• 13 years ago

Like since Aaron Schwartz or that other hacker that was convicted for a ludicrous sentence.

gmu3• 13 years ago

I feel like it is a little unfair comparing the number of years someone is sentenced and going to jail for and the number of years someone could go to jail for if they are found guilty and receive the max sentence.

(Perhaps people don't think the hacker did anything that should be considered a crime worthy of a sentence that long, but that's a totally different argument)

gknoy• 13 years ago

I don't think it is. Humans tend to instinctively "compromise" to a middle position. If you were to say, "this hacker must get between 2 and 40 years", you're much more likely (if I recall right?) to end up with them getting much more than the minimum.

fatman• 13 years ago

Well, there's always the federal sentencing guidlines - they would provide a little insight into what he's really facing. Also, the rape charges were state (juvenile) charges, not federal. The federales don't mess around.

ScottBurson• 13 years ago

Direct link to defense fund donation page: https://www.wepay.com/donations/deric-lostutter--ky-anonymou...

daned• 13 years ago

What are they alleging he did?

yekko• 13 years ago

Priorities, our masters sure got them.

pfortuny• 13 years ago

You know: the rule of law is more important than a lot of things (especially if these are done by minors). I have not understood what the 'hacker' did but IF it were trying to overstep due process, I would understand a very painful sentence.

The constitution is all about that: freedom and how the State handles the issues. Due process cannot be subverted without punishment even though doing so may have 'good consequences': the classical problem of the ends and the means.

cLeEOGPw• 13 years ago

It is actually very logical that hackers are sentenced for much higher than violent criminals, because a hacker is a potential threat to the government stability (in case he exposes secret data about the activities of the government), while all violent criminal does is damages one or few people property and/or health. In the sense of computer system, a violent criminal is some incorrect input, while a hacker is a bug in the system.

Hacker Who Helped Expose Steubenville Could Get More Prison Time Than Rapists

Related Stories