
Jonathan James - will_brown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_James
======
jeremymims
Looks like Steve Heymann has a history of this:

"The case was picked up by Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Heymann in Boston,
the cybercrime prosecutor who won a record 20-year prison stretch for TJX
hacker Albert Gonzalez. Heymann indicted Aaron on 13 counts of wire fraud,
computer intrusion and reckless damage. The case has been wending through pre-
trial motions for 18 months, and was set for jury trial on April 1." [1]

Appears that Jonathan James and Aaron Swartz both had the same prosecutor
after them...

[1] <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/aaron-swartz/>

~~~
doktrin
> "who won a record 20-year sentence"

I know this is common verbiage, but it's frankly sickening. Do they view their
targets as people, or are they merely a collection of scalps?

~~~
rwmj
Gonzalez stole real money, I'm sure causing many people a great deal of
trouble and distress. He said in chat logs that he aimed to steal $15 million
and retire. It's really not that much different from pickpocketing or bank
robbery, except on a much larger scale, and I'm quite happy if pickpockets,
bank robbers, insurance scammers, and other criminals get serious time.

This is quite different from Aaron Swartz who wrote a slightly more advanced
recursive 'wget'/'curl' to download something he already had access to.

~~~
linuxhansl
Punishment is unfortunately needed for deterrence. But 20 years? Does anybody
here have any grasp about how long 20 years are in prison?

Where I'm from the maximum sentence is 15 years in prison.

~~~
jwdunne
Yes, that stood out to me too. There are people in the UKwjo have been
released or sentenced much shorter terms for FAR more heinous crimes. We're
talking juveniles who have tortured and killed infants, people who have beaten
children to death, people who raped multiple women and much more.

I know he stole a lot of money but this is compared to people who have
destroyed lives, many of whom enjoyed doing so.

------
InclinedPlane
Relevant, journalist David Gregory blatantly violated Washington, DC firearms
law, on air. He won't face charges:

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/12/nbc_s_davi...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/12/nbc_s_david_gregory_won_t_face_charges_for_displaying_ammo_clip_on_tv.html)

I hate to say it but if these trends continue we'll be well on our way to a
new sort of feudalism, where laws are selectively enforced and the little guys
who hold political views or who are part of minorities that are despised by
the powers that be get hit hard while the people who are rich or politically
connected get a break. We've seen it with drug laws (where even cocaine
possession translates to much different charges when the accused is white and
affluent vs black and poor), with prescription drug abuse, with tax laws, with
gun laws, with computer crime (where a corporation can install rootkits on
people's computers with few legal ramifications), etc.

~~~
thosegivenmuch
and I hate to say, especially since I just created a new account to rebut
this, but David Gregory's holding a magazine has zero basis for reference in
this discussion. None. Its a bit of rightwing talking point at the moment, but
it has _nothing_ to do with aarons trial. So, no, not relevant. I don't care
how much karma you have, or how long you've been on this site. I've been here
for four years, maybe commented a dozen times at most. You're using a blatant
talking point of the right wing to what? Make some grandiose statement about
"where we're headed"? As if David Gregory getting prosecuted for making a
point about magazine capacity would have some how made aarons situation
more.....fair? Really? This is kind of despicable.

~~~
InclinedPlane
This has nothing to do with the debate about guns and everything to do with
prosecutorial and judicial discretion and the abuse there of.

Does the law matter? Does the law apply equally to everyone?

It certainly doesn't seem so. And if you look at the _other_ examples I gave,
this is all of a piece, irrespective of gun regulation. If you are wealthy and
connected then many laws don't apply to you, or there is always a way around
them. The prosecutors or judges will look the other way or go easy on you when
you violate firearms law. Or, as with Rush Limbaugh, when you abuse
prescription drugs. It's not a partisan issue, it's about class and status.

In the case of Aaron Swartz we have just such an example of being on the wrong
end of prosecutorial discretion. JSTOR didn't go after Aaron, but the
government decided to. They treated him like a terrorist.

------
leoh
I think one thing that users of HN are picking up on during this crisis is the
sense that in some ways, "hackers" are alike--whether a relatively egregious
case as in this article, a very mild to innocuous case such as Swartz's, or a
truly innocuous case like reverse-engineering open source software--in that we
are all curious and we are all sometimes foolish. What the justice department
and the masses among us forget is that even very successful people like Steve
Jobs and Bill Gates were and are hackers, and that in the case of the former's
hacking (Jobs' blue-boxing days), it could have gotten him in really, really
big trouble.

So I think a big part of this is that we know that people make mistakes and
that justice is absurdly harsh and out-of-proportion, not to mention the fact
that as hackers, we definitely have the ability to do really insanely great
things with our lives.

But one thing to remember is that the justice system in this country is
absurdly harsh to a lot of people. It's absurdly harsh to minorities and to
drug users for example, too. The fact is, the way that justice is executed in
this country needs to be re-thought for everyone.

Edit: I just wanted to add to this. The key to a better outcome is greater
kindness. Kindness to others and kindness to ourselves. There will always be
foolish people like Swartz's prosecutor or the people at MIT. But in this
technological age, in first-world countries, our immediate needs are usually
taken care of. The things that make a true difference is kindness. The
kindness of mentors, the kindness of friends and lovers, the kindness of
strangers. Swartz's prosecutor could have been more kind. Even Swartz, I think
it could be said, could have been kinder to himself, loving himself and taking
more caution for himself instead of placing himself in such peril. We all need
to be kind to others and ourselves as much as we can, without putting
ourselves in danger. Sometimes a little danger is what it takes to change
things, true. But kindness is what we all need more of in this age and what, I
think, we truly desire. RIP Aaron.

~~~
lilsunnybee
The vast majority of people will never experience the harshness of the US
justice system, except those that chance or circumstance chooses. That really
sucks, because how is anything supposed to change for the better if there
isn't the awareness and outcry against the unfairness of the system?

------
byoung2
_"I have no faith in the 'justice' system. Perhaps my actions today, and this
letter, will send a stronger message to the public. Either way, I have lost
control over this situation, and this is my only way to regain control. I die
free."_

That is a sad and powerful statement.

~~~
w1ntermute
It is a testament to how control of this country has been completely wrested
from the hands of the middle class since the 60s and 70s and taken over by
megacorporations, the military-industrial complex, and the ultrawealthy. I
recently read about this phenomenon in the book _Who Stole the American
Dream?_ , by Hedrick Smith[0]. I highly recommend it.

The first signs of change appeared in the 2012 election, as the young people
voted for marijuana legalization (and gay marriage) in two states and the
hundreds of millions spent by the wealthy on campaign ads (enabled by the
Citizens United ruling) failed to produce material results. Unfortunately, it
appears that the older generations' viewpoints are largely stagnant, so this
change will probably have to occur one funeral at a time.

0: [http://www.amazon.com/Who-Stole-American-Dream-
ebook/dp/B007...](http://www.amazon.com/Who-Stole-American-Dream-
ebook/dp/B007MEWAX2)

~~~
testimoney2
Well I mean the guy commited crimes and entered private systems. Its not like
he is innocent. Are you saying you want it to be legal to hack into any random
system in the world ? (that would remove all the fun of hacking)

PS: And I have done some hacking, stolen some files, financial information a
long time ago, but I agree that it is highly illegal and should be punished
and I do regret my actions. Thankfully I stopped before it was too late

~~~
AnthonyMouse
>highly illegal

This is the problem. It should be "illegal" but not "highly illegal" -- the
penalties should be along the lines of trespass, e.g. 30 days in jail or a
$1000 fine, not 30 years in prison and a million dollar fine.

More than that, the crimes need to be defined with actual specificity. Read
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act sometime if you want to scare yourself. It's
preposterously vague. How about we repeal that in its entirety and defer to
the laws that prohibit the actual bad stuff, like fraud, identity theft,
misappropriation of trade secrets, etc.

If all you do is get root on a server and then leave, the penalty should be a
$5 fine and a stern warning, and the same penalty for the "victim" who put an
insecure server on the internet.

~~~
ghshephard
Not to go too far off track here - but should I get a penalty for not locking
my door at home?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
OK, forget the fine then, we'll just go with the stern warning.

The point is that they should both get the proverbial slap on the wrist -- the
person who breaks in should be chastised but hasn't caused any real harm and
the person who allowed it to happen should endeavor to be more careful and not
redirect responsibility for something trivially harmful that they could have
themselves prevented if they deemed it worthy of the required effort.

~~~
ghshephard
So, what your are saying, is that I shouldn't be penalized if I don't lock my
door at home, but I have no basis to complain if someone comes into my house,
snoops around, looks in drawers, and then leaves without damaging anything.

I'm actually ambivalent about this, but I'm always intrigued as to whether
people's sense of "Protect yourself on the internet or you deserve what you
get" translates to "Protect yourself at home, or you deserve to be burgled".

Indeed - one could take it so far as, "Protect yourself with a weapon late at
night/in your home, or you deserve to be beaten/mugged/etc..." - but, in
general, we recognize the black and white line somewhere between "ssh server"
and "put in hospital with contusions" - I think the "snooping around my house
with unlocked door" is the gray area.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
I think there is also an argument that the internet is different, both because
pretty good security is reasonably within reach for the typical server
operator (unlike the cost of e.g. vault-quality doors and walls in a home),
and because your government _can't_ protect you from the wider internet
because most of it is outside of its jurisdiction.

In that situation having a bunch of mostly harmless curious kids banging
around creating antibodies in the system is probably a net positive, so that
you find out your security is broken when some kid (who isn't trying to avoid
detection and steal your trade secrets) is the one who opens your eyes to the
vulnerability instead of the eye opener being a Chinese company selling your
secret formula for near-cost on the world market.

------
ALee
Our government used to hire the brilliant minds who taught us about our
security flaws. See here for RTM:
[http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/08/us/living-with-the-
compute...](http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/08/us/living-with-the-computer-
whiz-kids.html)

Even Sean Parker of Napster, Facebook, and now Spotify glory was offered a job
when he was younger. Somehow something changed in the past 10 years.

~~~
_delirium
And imagine the world if Jobs and Wozniak had been hounded by federal
prosecutors...

~~~
sks
I read an article today which pointed out how Feynman went around cracking
safes during the Manhattan Project. Something fundamental has changed in the
society ... Imagine the present if people like Jobs/Woz would have been locked
up for phone phreaking.

~~~
hkmurakami
If you're interested in reading more about it, his shenanigans are told in
further detail in "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!"

[http://www.amazon.com/Surely-Feynman-Adventures-Curious-
Char...](http://www.amazon.com/Surely-Feynman-Adventures-Curious-
Character/dp/0393316041/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_y)

------
jmspring
The problem I have with the justice system in cases like this is that there
are curious people, they will have, probe, poke, tickle, whatever systems are
available. The justice system, as mentioned, only sees those making these
"intrusions" in black and white terms -- criminals.

In the case linked, "NASA had to shut it's systems down for 3 weeks at the
cost of $41000 to check and fix it's systems"...This is bullshit. First off,
you should have sufficient redundancy in your internal systems, especially for
life critical code, that an intrusion affects the front line, not things like
your source repository. Further, you should have regular backups and
checkpoints -- checksums, etc. to be able to compare and identify anything
compromised.

Laws to guard against lazy employees should not be allowed.

A bogus case.

~~~
cremnob
She shouldn't have been walking down that dark alley at that time anyway.

~~~
GuiA
I sincerely hope that you didn't post this analogy sincerely believing it, as
the two are diametrically opposed.

~~~
cremnob
It absolutely was sincere. I'm not sure why you think they are "diametrically
opposed". In both cases it is victim blaming.

~~~
GuiA
Except that what grandparent was pointing out what not a case of victim
blaming at all; rather, that the response was completely disproportionate to
the act.

If you have a really nice sports car and I open the hood to see what engine it
has and how it works, yes, I am in the wrong for not asking your permission
first. However, if you then try to sue me for $100k because you claim that you
had to have expensive maintenance done, you had to get the entire car
diagnosed and $20k of repair done, etc. then you are clearly responding in an
inappropriate manner.

That's what the whole "NASA had to shut it's systems down for 3 weeks at the
cost of $41000 to check and fix it's systems" is about.

I hope you see now how that is very much different from the "she was asking
for it" kind of BS.

~~~
smsm42
Securing top-secret facility after a beak-in (where we know keyloggers and
such were installed) is a bit more expensive than popping the hood of the car.
At minimum, whole OS and all software packages have to be reinstalled from
known clean media, and whole software stack needs to be recreated from
scratch, without using backups (which could be compromised too). If you're
properly paranoid, add new hardware too (most of the current hardware is
programmable at some level, i.e. needs to be replaced after a breakin). And
then you need to invalidate all passwords on all the systems and have
everybody to reset their passwords. And not only user login passwords - all
router passwords, domain passwords, service logins, everything.

I can easily see how such work can take, for multiple systems, several weeks
and 41K is not an outrageous sum for completely recreating the system.
Especially when something controlling life-preserving equipment is involved -
which means additional testing, etc. - it's not a website that you can just
push into production and if some page glitches the user would tell you.

------
ck2
We cannot see into Aaron's thoughts of course but if I had to guess, maybe he
thought he was going to be Bradley Manning-inged which might drive anyone over
the edge.

Stripped naked and thrown into a cell "for his protection" (he got a whopping
100 days off his 30 years to life sentence for that abuse btw, so that will
teach the people that did that right?)

Perhaps we should use this energy to help the living Bradley Manning in
protest as it does little to help Aaron or his loved ones now.

~~~
alan_cx
Yes, but spread the net wider. Manning isnt the only one.

------
gmt2027
This article does not mention that the real J.J. in the TJX case could have
been '7 foot tall' Stephen Watt, a former Morgan Stanley employee with the
aliases 'Jim Jones' and 'Unix Terrorist'

<http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/watt/>

------
nell
Anyone who argues for any punishment, should first have experienced a sample
of the same treatment. How can someone who doesn't know what it means and
feels to live through a punishment wish to inflict it upon others. Seems like
the behavior of a beast.

------
nola1
Great interview of Jonathan James with Frontline:
[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hackers/interv...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hackers/interviews/anon.html)

------
jellyksong
I'm not sure we should glorify Jonathan James or even compare him to Aaron
Swartz. His "hacking" of the DoD was undeniably illegal, and his sentencing
seemed appropriate for his actions. We will never know if he was innocent or
not of the TJX case. It's tragic that he killed himself, but, at least to me,
his actions seemed on the whole more malicious than Swartz's ever was.

~~~
will_brown
"I'm not sure we should glorify Jonathan James or even compare him to Aaron
Swartz."

I just posted the Wiki article in no way did I glorify him. However, to
suggest I am in error to even compare his story to Aaron's is well....an
error.

"His "hacking" of the DoD was undeniably illegal, and his sentencing seemed
appropriate for his actions."

Illegal is an absolute term, an act is either illegal or not, there are not
degrees such as "undeniably illegal." As to your observation that the sentence
was appropriate, keep in mind that James was 15 at the time of his alleged
hacking and he was the first minor tried by the US federal government.
Further, the federal prosecutors (Janet Reno, in particular) used James story
as a political gain by threatening James with adult charges carrying more than
10 years, all so they could "prove the Justice Department is willing to get
tough on juveniles offenders accused of cyber crime." So James took a plea
deal and at 16 was on 6 month house arrest and probation to 18 and he had to
stop using computers for recreational use, shit even drunk drivers can drive
again.

"It's tragic that he killed himself, but, at least to me, his actions seemed
on the whole more malicious than Swartz's ever was."

I only want to address this as devil's advocate, but in terms of James' act
being malicious, James acquired $1.7 million in NASA software, he did publish
it or sell it, rather he did it to learn more coding. Further, he said he only
pursued his exploits because he wanted to explore, which seems to be the very
opposite of malicious, after all anyone who was malicious and in control of
the Space Stations life sustaining systems could surely have caused more
damage than copying the code if they were truly malicious. Whereas Aaron
breached a system and copied information with the intent to redistribute it in
mass to the detriment of the system itself, which fits the very definition of
malice. I am in no way justifying anyone's actions and condemning another's
actions, simply highlighting that your word choice of malicious really does
not seem fitting for James as much as curious, whereas Aaron intended to
destroy a system albeit one that many feel unethically controlled the flow of
knowledge which should otherwise be open and free. Besides assuming Aaron did
have intent and malice toward the system, is he any more legally culpable than
say someone who takes bread to feed the hungry where they are otherwise being
starved?

------
stesch
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Koch_%28hacker%29>

------
lawnchair_larry
How is this on the front page? This isn't recent or relevant to anything.

~~~
seanlinehan
The circumstances of Jonathan James's death are very similar to the death of
Aaron Swartz...

~~~
Codhisattva
They sure are but I think the most significant part is the depression. Mental
health is an unspoken issue in the industry.

