LulzSec Hacker Jeremy Hammond Pleads Guilty To CFAA Charge; Faces 10 Years
from the doj-pile-on dept
In yet another Computer Fraud and Abuse Act case, in which the DOJ piled on charge after charge after charge until the person they were pressuring accepted a plea bargain, Jeremy Hammond has officially accepted a plea deal for helping LulzSec/Anonymous hack Stratfor. He admits that he did it, and given that, it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that some punishment is warranted, but it still seems troubling the amount of pressure that the DOJ used to get him to take a plea bargain. We've talked about this for years: very few cases go to trial, because the DOJ pulls out everything possible to pressure you to take a plea:There were numerous problems with the government's case, including the credibility of FBI informant Hector Monsegur. However, because prosecutors stacked the charges with inflated damages figures, I was looking at a sentencing guideline range of over 30 years if I lost at trial. I have wonderful lawyers and an amazing community of people on the outside who support me. None of that changes the fact that I was likely to lose at trial. But, even if I was found not guilty at trial, the government claimed that there were eight other outstanding indictments against me from jurisdictions scattered throughout the country. If I had won this trial I would likely have been shipped across the country to face new but similar charges in a different district. The process might have repeated indefinitely. Ultimately I decided that the most practical route was to accept this plea with a maximum of a ten year sentence and immunity from prosecution in every federal court.It's worth noting that others involved in the same case have been sentenced to much lower sentences in the UK, so it will be interesting to see what the final sentencing yields.
Hammond insists that he still stands by what he did:
Now that I have pleaded guilty it is a relief to be able to say that I did work with Anonymous to hack Stratfor, among other websites. Those others included military and police equipment suppliers, private intelligence and information security firms, and law enforcement agencies. I did this because I believe people have a right to know what governments and corporations are doing behind closed doors. I did what I believe is right.As I've said before, while I understand why people think this is reasonable strategy, such hacks almost always lead to more backlash than forward momentum. Yes, governments and companies are doing questionable things behind closed doors, but hacking into them to "prove" that takes away much of the value of finding out that information, and only increases the power of the government to create and use laws like the CFAA broadly to stifle perfectly legitimate uses of computers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anonymous, cfaa, cracking, doj, hacking, jeremy hammond, lulzsec
Companies: stratfor
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
get wut he deservez
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1/10
troll harder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absurd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absurd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Absurd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Absurd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is nothing more than the government flexing its muscles to inspire fear and uncertainty in people in order to get them to get their way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No shit. That's because you committed the crimes you were charged with.
Now that I have pleaded guilty it is a relief to be able to say that I did work with Anonymous to hack Stratfor, among other websites. Those others included military and police equipment suppliers, private intelligence and information security firms, and law enforcement agencies. I did this because I believe people have a right to know what governments and corporations are doing behind closed doors. I did what I believe is right.
This will endear you with the sentencing court. Maybe you should consider that you are not entitled to the information stored on computers owned by others. Just a thought.
As I've said before, while I understand why people think this is reasonable strategy, such hacks almost always lead to more backlash than forward momentum. Yes, governments and companies are doing questionable things behind closed doors, but hacking into them to "prove" that takes away much of the value of finding out that information, and only increases the power of the government to create and use laws like the CFAA broadly to stifle perfectly legitimate uses of computers.
This is absolutely true. Stupid, arrogant "activists" like this inevitably see their plans blow up in their faces like an exploding cigar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That was not proven in a court of law, was it? Plea bargains are a huge miscarriage of justice.
"Maybe you should consider that you are not entitled to the information stored on computers owned by others"
Unless you are the government, then it is no holds barred.
Two sets of rules ... hi court, low court. Corruption is rampant. Stating the obvious is fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If he'd gone to trial he would have likely been convicted and gotten more time.
Funny, one more instance where I don't recall hearing about anyone donating to one of the Heroes legal defense. You people certainly are cheap to a fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pleading guilty as part of a plea bargain does not prove the defendant committed the crime they are accused of. It means that our justice system is broken. I suggest some light reading on the subject may be beneficial.
Due to the fear of massive charges and ridiculous debt many accept reduced charges even though they committed no crime. This is the result of judicial over reach, lazy investigators and a for profit prison system.
It is sad that justice needs to go begging via a legal defense fund.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pleading guilty as part of a plea bargain does not prove the defendant committed the crime they are accused of. It means that our justice system is broken. I suggest some light reading on the subject may be beneficial.
Due to the fear of massive charges and ridiculous debt many accept reduced charges even though they committed no crime. This is the result of judicial over reach, lazy investigators and a for profit prison system.
It is sad that justice needs to go begging via a legal defense fund.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm...
Or was that someone else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: arcan on May 28th, 2013 @ 4:30pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rubbish
As with protestwarrior, he did it for the CC numbers.
I've dealt with Hammond a lot, both before and after his jailtime for his protest warrior CC theft. He's arrogant, self-important, self-opinionated, and has no long term plans. He's also not as smart as he thinks he is (and often got proved wrong about things he 'knew') and wasn't even that good a 'hacker' (he attacked me in 09, after I threatened to go to his probation officer over another hack he'd done (to rig an internal pirate party election for his buddy, another kid in the Rik-from-the-young-ones mold), and he bounced.
He claims to have principles, but I've only ever seen one, and that principle was "me me me"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OR this guy committed multiple "crimes" over a long period.
But looks like Hammond still has some woozy notions of law: "immunity from prosecution in every federal court." I don't believe that his use of "immunity" can possibly be correct, THOUGH there may have been an illegal deal (by which I mean DOJ was trying to turn him into an agent -- and possibly has) in which that word was used.
I'd cautiously agree with Mike's last paragraph, but add that when the gov't is eager to find "hackers", it's simply stupid to go sneaking into closets in order to "liberate" data, as Aaron Schwartz did.
And then I'd sweep on from Mike's suggestion that this bit of hacking brought on draconian enforcement to the notion that piracy of copyrighted content will similarly bring bad results: yes, you pirates cause more of the gov't action that you rail about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR this guy committed multiple "crimes" over a long period.
What's really happening is that the Chamber of Commerce in association with the **AAs have been making normal behaviour illegal and civil laws criminal in the name of your beloved copyright, in addition to lengthening the already insanely long terms.
Your argument is invalid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Rubbish
I am not shocked to see Mike Masnick standing up for another internet criminal though. Wake up, the charges weren't piled on, they were real.
Stick that in your anonymous internet and smoke it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Rubbish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Rubbish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now that you all know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now that you all know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now that you all know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reminder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pfft. He needs the time to get his head on straight
Needless to say it didn't work out. The guy was toxic to pretty much anyone who didn't stroke his ego.
He's not Robin Hood.
He's not a hero.
He's not Swartz (who simply wanted free information).
He's not Mitnick (who was an OCD binge-hacker).
He's not Abby Hoffman.
He's not even Ted Kaczynski.
This was never about morals.
Or ethics.
Or justice or any of that.
It's about Jeremy stroking his ego. About him feeling powerful and important. About stealing from someone he dislikes.
And he learned NOTHING in his first vacation at Club Fed. 2 years in Medium Security. And he came out every bit as effed up as he was when he went in (if not more-so). Still convinced that he did no wrong. He went right back out and did the same stupid thing AGAIN.
And the main reason he got caught? Because he had to open his mouth and brag about his "cred". He's an attention hound. Good, bad or otherwise. When he wants to be in the spotlight, with people paying attention to him.
So, all the people claiming that 10-30 years for a repeat offender is "out of line"? Or that he "didn't benefit". Grow up. Simply because Jeremy got caught before he could spend anything doesn't mean others didn't lose. Or didn't incur costs to protect themselves after he stole their information.
If you can't do the time DO NOT DO THE CRIME!
If I leave my door open, that is NOT tacit permission for you to come in, steal my wallet and vandalize my home.
The same notion applies to breaking into systems owned by others.
And, even if he did find some evidence of wrongdoing at Statfor, it doesn't excuse what he did. Indeed, it makes it WORSE now. Because he's tainted the evidence.
All in all, Jeremy needs to be segregated from society for his own good. He needs a support and therapy structure to get himself into a better, less destructive headspace.
Otherwise, he's going to come out of prison in a few years/decades and simply self-destruct like this all over again.
As much as I hate footing the prison bill for a moron like him, I believe he deserves a chance to get the therapy he so desperately needs. Or, failing that, that society deserves to be protected from destructive child-men such as he's demonstrated himself to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]