
Hacker Who Helped Expose Steubenville Could Get More Prison Time Than Rapists - soleimc
http://www.businessinsider.com/anonymous-hacker-deric-lostutter-raided-by-fbi-2013-6
======
danso
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..."

~~~
tomjen3
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
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.'

------
mratzloff
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.

~~~
SwellJoe
"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.

~~~
mratzloff
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).

~~~
sliverstorm
_I didn 't omit the word as part of some pro-rape agenda_

I'm not sure it's worth your time to contend this. The debate surrounding rape
is very if-you-arent-with-us-youre-against-us, so too often it seems it's
already a lost battle.

~~~
detcader
What debate is "surrounding rape" exactly? Are you referring to a debate as to
whether rape is ethically permissible or not? If so, where do you hang out?

~~~
brazzy
You're a perfect example for his point.

~~~
detcader
I thought the poster was referring to something other than "Men's Rights
Advocates"; maybe implicitly trotting out the hackneyed "Tumblr SJ crazies"
strawmen

------
Jabbles
An informative read if you're curious about US sentencing:
[http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-
sentence...](http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-
eleventy-million-years&#x2F);

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."_

~~~
mjn
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.

~~~
mpyne
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.

~~~
jessaustin
A more ethical group of prosecutors than we have (recruited, perhaps, among
the sea pirates, slave traders, and drug kingpins of the world?), wouldn't
make speculative statements about sentencing _at all_ , much less to the
media.

~~~
mpyne
Because obviously allowing the media to make speculative statements with are
_completely unfounded_ is much better than at least tempering with fact. OK.

~~~
jessaustin
"Facts" don't miraculously appear out of prosecutors' asses. Prosecutors are
not uninterested parties in trials, and if you really cared about the veracity
of media reports you would encourage the media to do its own reporting rather
than lap up press releases.

------
forgotAgain
The original Mother Jones story is here:
[http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/kyanonymous-
fbi-...](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/kyanonymous-fbi-
steubenville-raid-anonymous)

 _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
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!

~~~
gyardley
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.

~~~
icebraining
Is there no middle ground?

~~~
damoncali
While I'm no cop and such actions are concerning to me - let me play devil's
advocate. If you have to train a group of men to apprehend a wide variety of
suspects/fugitives/badguys in a manner that is fast, effective, and as safe as
possible, it makes sense that you keep the procedures, tactics, and equipment
used consistent.

After all, pointing an M16 at someone wont hurt them any more than pointing a
.38 special at them, but it's a hell of a lot less tempting to run/fight back
against an overwhelming force.

That they seem heavy handed in this case is just a result of it being on the
edge of the range they need to cover.

~~~
icebraining
All of that makes sense under the premise that the SWAT team should be used to
apprehend an individual which is not know to be part of any criminal group nor
has committed a violent act.

~~~
damoncali
I suspect they wanted to get in very quickly, but I think it might have made
more sense to send two guys to wait for him to come out of his house rather
than send 12 to kick in his door. I have limits as to how far I can argue
their point. It does seem somewhat excessive. But you never know the details.

------
pfortuny
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.

------
gmu3
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)

~~~
fatman
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.

------
codezero
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
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...](http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/01/inside-anonymous-
hacking-file-steubenville-rape-crew/60502&#x2F);

~~~
codezero
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.

------
ScottBurson
Direct link to defense fund donation page:
[https://www.wepay.com/donations/deric-lostutter--ky-
anonymou...](https://www.wepay.com/donations/deric-lostutter--ky-anonymous-
defense-fund)

------
cLeEOGPw
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.

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

~~~
Ygg2
Like since Aaron Schwartz or that other hacker that was convicted for a
ludicrous sentence.

------
yekko
Priorities, our masters sure got them.

------
daned
What are they alleging he did?

------
detcader
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!

