

Free Jeremy Hammond - sinak
http://freejeremy.net/

======
btilly
I know nothing about him. So before jumping up and down and cheering, I went
to
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hammond](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hammond)
to look it up.

He sounds like a fairly radicalized activist who did some seriously
questionable stuff, and will do it again given a chance. I applaud him for
being true to his ethics. But can see why the government goes after him.

Other than the solitary (we shouldn't do that at all the way we do), I cannot
support not punishing him for illegal acts he knowingly did.

~~~
59nadir
> He sounds like a fairly radicalized activist who did some seriously
> questionable stuff

Most of his arrests are either for stuff I don't care about (i.e. possession
of marijuana, which is just a stupid law) or for things I'm, to some extent,
happy someone is doing even if I wouldn't ever do them myself.

The most misguided one seems to be storming a restaurant and harassing the
guests, which is just misdirected bullshit even if you do dislike the owner.
The guests hadn't done anything wrong.

Beating the shit out of an anti-gay protester I couldn't possibly care less
about, though. Going to a pride parade and protesting against homosexuality
should get your ass kicked, even if it's against the law. The law isn't
"what's right" so while I'm not a violent person myself I can't see an issue
with that one.

~~~
teddyh
> Beating the shit out of an anti-gay protester I couldn't possibly care less
> about, though.

So freedom of speech is only for things you (and I) agree with?

~~~
59nadir
Getting your ass beat because you're a stupid douchebag is hardly the blow
against free speech you're making it out to be. Truth is there are lots of
things that make people deserve beatings that are well within the parameters
of the law.

From a legal perspective we tolerate lots of things. That doesn't mean it's
some big mystery to people that you might get beaten up if you're stupid
enough to go to a pride parade and protest against homosexuality. If anything,
it's a lesson in not being stupid.

~~~
teddyh
It's not a big mystery, but, unlike you, I _care_ about people getting
assaulted for peacefully expressing their dissenting opinion, no matter how
stupid they might be. I believe in caring about the right of unpopular
opinions to be expressed — this is the _essence_ of free speech.

~~~
59nadir
I care about them being allowed to express their opinions, but I'm also
realistic enough to realize there are venues and times where those opinions
should get them beat up. They can create whole movements if they'd like to, I
don't care.

How you make your voice heard matters and in this case it was so obviously
right for them to get "assaulted". Even more so with the almost too obvious
possibility that they went there expecting a bunch of docile homosexuals that
were too passive to do anything about their shit and learned the hard way that
being a fucking asshole can get you in trouble regardless of where you go.

To reiterate: I don't care what their opinions are but I certainly think it's
right in every way except the law for them to get beat up when they express it
in that way and in that particular setting/venue.

------
taspeotis
Can someone please educate me on what the need for a "time served" sentence
is? According to Wikipedia, this guy was (in part?) responsible for hacking
Stratfor which resulted in a bunch of credit card fraud [1].

> [posted] stolen credit card data, one containing 3,956 items and the other
> with 13,191 items. Next they posted a set of over 30,000 items

> ...

> The hackers said they used the credit card data to make donations to various
> charities, including the Red Cross, Save the Children and CARE. However, one
> security expert stated that the charities will never receive the payments,
> claiming that instead, customers will report the fraudulent transaction, and
> the credit cards will return the money to the customer using a charge back.
> Ironically, this will most likely be a minus for those charities as they
> lose out on the fraudulent donations, along with the nominal bank service
> charge that customers typically must pay simply for processing/re-
> processing.

As someone whose VPS provider was "compromised" and a few weeks later had
fraudulent transactions appeared on my credit card, it's stressful to be
arbitrarily out of pocket $500 and then stressful/annoying to go through the
chargeback process and get a new card and update your billing details
everywhere.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratfor#2011_hacking_incident](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratfor#2011_hacking_incident)

~~~
acomjean
This happened to my Cousin a year ago. A small donation to the PBS in NY.
Oddly he was a PBS member but knew he wouldn't put any membership on the card
that was charged.

Apparently these small donations are just used to check if a stolen cred card
is valid.

------
carlosdp
So am I to understand that it should be completely fine to compromise systems
illegally as long as they belong to a company that can be construed as "evil"?
Would this campaign exist if he had physically broken in to Stratfor instead
of electronically? Not every hack-tivist is a victim of the system, imho.

~~~
tptacek
Yes, that is what you are to understand from this page.

------
chrsm
Speaking as someone who was familiar with Jeremy many years ago, I feel
compelled to say that despite his more "radical" nature (as some have noted),
he really is a great person.

I'm not happy that he is currently facing a long time in prison (again). But
he's as truer to his beliefs than anyone I've ever met.

Unfortunately, his ideals aren't an excuse for breaking the law. Nonetheless,
I wish him the best of luck with his case.

------
bcl
The only mention of him on the EFF site is from June. Are they involved at
all?

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/jeremy-hammond-case-
de...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/jeremy-hammond-case-demonstrates-
draconian-nature-cfaa)

------
noptic
>"In November 2012, after being held for eight months without trial, Hammond
was denied bail ..."

So he is already in prison for 1 1/2 years without being sentenced?

Sounds like an interesting "justice" system.

I understand you can not let him walk, but _eight_ month without a trial? And
then he was denied bail? And why solitary confinement?

------
rdl
Advocating for comparable sentencing between online crimes and physical crimes
seems a lot more supportable than advocating repeal of all online/computer
crime laws.

------
ballard
The problem is that even one poorly behaving (h)activist sets a precedent for
average people against all other activists including those that perform a
societal good in a very ethical but technically illegal manner (Snowden). It
also sets a poor example for others coming of age.

How things are accomplished is of more importance than what is accomplished.
Activists should plan carefully by seeking out likely anticipated consequences
before pulling the trigger. Otherwise, it's just reactive, aggressive chaos
that doesn't go very far.

