Reuters employee charged with aiding Anonymous in website defacement

Discuss

14 Responses to “Reuters employee charged with aiding Anonymous in website defacement”

  1. teapot says:

    Being a taliban cannibal meth cook would get you less time. Fuck the US legal system is a joke.

  2. That_Anonymous_Coward says:

    When is someone going to start informing on the “Justice System” in America?  They seem to be bigger criminals than those they pursue.

  3. Justin J. Snelgrove says:

    The way this is worded makes it sound like “helping members of Anonymous” is now officially a crime. (As opposed to being charged with something else, in relation to helping members of Anonymous.)

    • Boundegar says:

      Worse – it sounds like “allegedly” helping is a crime.  Is there any evidence against this guy besides a denunciation by another guy who’s in custody?

  4. Luke says:

    I’m hoping that Sabu still gets at least 25 years in prison even after ratting out every person that ever had any dealings with him ever.  He turned snitch so quickly it is ridiculous. 

  5. Grahamers2002 says:

    Sentiments like “snitch” and “rat out” carry with them a horrible history and connotation. (See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Snitchin’

    I hate to see them used by people interested in honest justice.  

  6. TooGoodToCheck says:

    Article 3 of the constitution – guarantees trial by jury
    Eighth Amendment – forbids cruel & unusual punishment

    If you are accused of committing a crime related to computers, you get to pick which of those two you’d like.

  7. Aurvondel says:

     It’s worth noting that just because someone is “facing” umpteen gazillion years in prison, it’s very unlikely they’re going to get sentenced to the maximum, especially if it’s a first offence. Federal sentencing guidelines (good introduction at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines ) will generally govern the amount of jail time, and one of the primary modifiers is the defendant’s criminal history. Other variables deal with the severity of the crime, the calculated loss to Reuters, the defendant’s involvement in the actual carrying out of the hack, etc. If he pleads, that’ll shave more off it.

  8. macsimcon says:

    You guys aren’t getting it. Just being publicly accused carries horrible penalties. Now people will distrust this guy the rest of his life, wondering if he really did it. The criminal attorney will cost him tens of thousands of dollars. The angst and worry of spending the next 30 years in prison will be incredibly stressful.

    We need a simple law for federal prosecutors: if you indict and your facts are obviously wrong (such as indicting someone for providing access that they couldn’t have provided), you go to federal prison for life, without the possibility of parole.

    I imagine they would think twice before inventing cases.

Leave a Reply