Appeals Court Upholds Matthew Keys' Two-Year Sentence For A 40-Minute Web Defacement
from the can-never-have-too-much-deterrent-apparently dept
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Matthew Keys’ conviction and sentence of two years for a 40-minute web defacement he didn’t actually perform himself. That works out to basically 18 days for every minute of mild disruption the LA Times suffered, as it (very briefly) suffered through a headline changed to read “Pressure builds in House to elect CHIPPY 1337.”
Prosecutors actually wanted five years for this momentary mild hacking, but still managed to end up with two years after the LA Times submitted enough paperwork to make it appear as though this 40-minute malicious hiccup racked up $1 million in CFAA damages.
The appeals court isn’t there to question the accuracy of the LA Times’ bill of lading, but it does use the inflated figure to affirm the part of the sentencing affected by the claimed damages. From the unpublished opinion [PDF]:
Concerning employee response time, the district court did not abuse its discretion by relying on loss estimates based on employees’ testimonies or on the worksheet prepared by a Fox 40 executive. In response to Keys’s challenge to inconsistencies in the employee salary evidence, the district court appropriately re-reviewed the trial testimony and considered the amount in light of national statistics on the value of non-liquid employee benefits.
The government presented evidence that nearly all of the 20,000 Fox 40 Rewards Program members cancelled their participation in response to Keys’s conduct. Starting essentially from square one, the database took three years to rebuild. The district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the Fox 40 executive’s representation that this process cost $200,000. It was appropriate for the district court to order restitution in the amount it cost Fox 40 to replace the member database, as it would be difficult to determine the fair market value of such an asset.
Basically, this database could have been worth any amount, so why not the $200k the LA Times claims it’s worth. That adds to the restitution amount owed by Keys and also plays a small part in the sentencing. But in total, this is overkill for a 40-minute web defacement, especially one performed by someone else using Keys’ login credentials. The move may have been petty and amateurish but it’s extremely difficult to believe the momentary elevation of Chippy 1337 to the front page of the LA Times’ website warrants a two-year sentence and thousands of dollars in fines.
But it appears the DOJ is happy with this outcome. And having completed its prosecution of Keys, it’s presumably performing an OJ Simpson-style hunt for the person who actually performed the defacement.
Filed Under: appeal, cfaa, hacking, matthew keys, sentence
Comments on “Appeals Court Upholds Matthew Keys' Two-Year Sentence For A 40-Minute Web Defacement”
Framing it by the amount of time is meaningless. Its not about how lobg it is that it happened at all.
Re: Re:
So, a 30 second outage should be the punishable the same as a few weeks by your assessment? That’s strange considering that the sentencing seems to hinge on the amount of money that was supposedly lost.
Oh, and if it’s the time you have the biggest problem with out of the following sentence, you and I have very different priorities " conviction and sentence of two years for a 40-minute web defacement he didn’t actually perform himself".
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t think he is suggesting that at all. The crime isn’t “how long” the crime is the illegal access and defacement, period. It’s sort of like breaking and entering, it’s not how long you stay, it’s that you broke in.
As for the “didn’t perform himself”, we have been over this many times. He provided the password and asked for it to be done. There isn’t much wiggle room there for the simple reason that without him, nothing would have happened.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“The crime isn’t “how long” the crime is the illegal access and defacement, period.”
Not entirely true. The original claim was changed, which if you look at the history involved inflating damages involved with the breach. This appears to have been so that it would fall under the CFAA rather than other statutes. Part of that appears to be inflated claims of how much damage was done during the downtime, so the length of time is utterly relevant.
“It’s sort of like breaking and entering, it’s not how long you stay, it’s that you broke in”
Well yes, except the actual crime appears to have been more like “gave the keys to someone who later committed breaking & entering”. Rather different surely, even if they both deserve some kind of punishment?
As ever, nobody’s saying he should get away scott free. Only that this seems disproportionate to the actual crime committed.
“we have been over this many times”
Have we indeed? Well, one of the advantages of you having now bothered to present an identifiable handle is that we can now search & verify what the previous arguments are. Whereas before, we only had your woefully untrustworthy bare assertions.
So, now, we can discuss recorded, verifiable exchanges, rather than whatever your biased memory tells you it was. This goes both ways, so you can prove I’m wrong about your biases shtick rather than go on a childish rant when you don’t like how I’m recalling your actions. Being honest is fun, isn’t it?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You Counter Intelligence guys (or ladies) are creepy for sure. You way overthink everything. “Recorded verifiable exchanges”, creepy, really, who pays that much attention? Is this life and death to you? Aren’t you just having fun like the rest of us?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
@ PaulT:
2 years — or any — seems long to you because you have no respect for the property of others. This stems from no valid motive except rabid urge to bring down civilization, as indeed, you pirates do in attacking copyright. You want the full protections of modern law while acting like barbarians.
This person was the one who got caught, and apparently key to the crime. I’d go a year per EIGHT minutes as prosecution wanted.
Around here not long ago, group of idiots were out smashing mailboxes one night, and an owner shot and killed one at distance; he was acquitted by the jury. That’s how valuable your lives actually are when destructive, kids: less than a mailbox.
Easy way to avoid problems is DON’T destroy or even tamper with property.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Well spoken by a Fellow American.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“This stems from no valid motive except rabid urge to bring down civilization, as indeed, you pirates do in attacking copyright.”
“This person was the one who got caught, and apparently key to the crime. I’d go a year per EIGHT minutes”
Go away, troll.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
TOR pirate says what?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Could you link your mailbox story. If it was the US, I don’t actually believe it is true. I have heard someone get trouble because he filled his mailbox with cement and had to pay the medical bills for the kid the broke his arm trying to smash his mailbox from a car.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Lying about me personally does not make you right.
“Around here not long ago, group of idiots were out smashing mailboxes one night, and an owner shot and killed one at distance; he was acquitted by the jury.”
I’ll need a source for that, I don’t believe the words of a known mental case and fantasist without proof. It should be well reported, since according to you it’s part of the public court record and a notable case. Provide the link, please.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Well yes, except the actual crime appears to have been more like “gave the keys to someone who later committed breaking & entering”. Rather different surely, even if they both deserve some kind of punishment?”
I would argue no. It’s not “rather different”. If you help someone commit a crime, I would argue you are just as guilty as the person committing the crime. I believe it’s called “aiding and abetting” here in the U.S.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“It’s not “rather different”.”
“I believe it’s called “aiding and abetting” here in the U.S.”
Therefore, a rather different crime with different severity and sentencing structure to breaking and entering? You did contradict yourself there slightly.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Sorry Paul, you just have it all wrong, as usual.
I won’t bother to correct you, as you will just come back and spew the same stuff again. Duration of the break in isn’t the issue, the breaking in is the issue. Just work with it, it’s the truth.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I’m wrong, but you won’t tell me why, even for the benefit of other people who agree with me. We just have to believe the bare assertions of a proven liar.
Right…
Re: Re: Re:
He is not entirely wrong.
The attempt alone, regardless of outcome, is the largest factor. My concern here is, do we have the right guy and/or is someone skating free or should they be locked up right beside him?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, there’s several issues here. One is the application of the CFAA, which seems to have been triggered by some questionable claims on the other end. One is the fact that the people who actually did the deed aren’t being prosecuted (I may be wrong here, but I don’t recall any stories about their convictions, only for the guy who provided them password). One is the proportionality of the sentence to the crime he actually committed.
But, I’d still argue that the downtime is a major issue. Part of this is merely curiosity – how can a 40 minute downtime cause the damage that is claimed here? The story doesn’t add up from what I understand. It’s also interesting from the legal angle, since the amount of claimed damage is what’s being used to sentence him, then timing is important in my mind there.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“how can a 40 minute downtime cause the damage that is claimed here?”
This is a very tough question. I’m sure they suffered some financial loss of some sort. They probably had technicians fixing it, then technicians finding out how it happened. They probably had some kind of internal investigation to figure out who would hang for allowing this.. etc… I would also argue that they, perhaps rightfully so, took a PR hit and were basically embarrassed. How do you put a dollar amount on that? No clue! Million dollars? Bullshit!!
With that said, I personally think 2 years is fine. He will probably serve 60 to 80 percent if he’s a non-repeat offender, and it will serve as a good example to the rest of the people that want to deface others property. I realize that won’t be a popular opinion, and I’m ok with that. Obviously the penalties for the crime he committed were not sufficient enough to deter him from committing it in the first place. It’s not like this is a crime of passion or a spontaneous act, he had clear premeditation and intent. He should do the time.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“how can a 40 minute downtime cause the damage that is claimed here?”
Was just 40 minutes of defacement or downtime the objective, or was the objective worse and just thwarted? what if there was evidence to further use the site for something else nefarious?
Even if it was more of a “joke” attack they still are not okay to interfere with other people lawfully going about their day.
But I do agree with you here, there is a LOT of missing information and something definitely smells about all of this, but I cannot say that this person is definitely undeserving of the punishment they could be receiving, but I also cannot say that they are.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
how can a 40 minute downtime cause the damage that is claimed here?
They could have heard 10 songs
Think of how much 10 songs are worth on the Internet…I think the going rate is $9.62 million for a Bakers’ dozen
Re: Re:
By that logic, I should get refunded the entire month’s bill next time my internet service goes down. I’ll try that and let you know how it worked out.
Absolutely agree.
latimes is as bad as nytimes. just look at their hit pieces against president trump.
Re: Re:
And that’s bad why?
Re: Re:
All those inconvenient facts. Sad!
Re: Re:
The nyt has a lot of issues, but criticizing politicians/candidates -especially those campaigning for a powerful position- isn’t exactly a bad thing.
Re: Re: Re:
lol, a lot of my sides shit does not stink, but yours does posts!
Good job partisan citizens!
I think it is clear that they have a lot of bias in their reporting.
You “would” be right, but only if those places criticized all parties equally.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Need to go to your Fox News safe space?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Did you see Tucker Carlson talk about SCOTUS today? 9-0, all you liberal Weenies LOST!
Winning again, the court is back on our side, the Dems are on the run, see the features on Fox News! MAGA!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Did you see Tucker Carlson talk about SCOTUS today?”
No. What was said, and why is that relevant here? Do you have multiple sources so that we can compare the biased.
“see the features on Fox News”
Lol, “LA Times and NYT are biased. You can see this by looking at the most demonstrably biased source out there!”
You guys would be scary if you didn’t overplay your hand to the point of obviousness.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
The poster that I replied to spoke about Fox News, which is of course, the least biased news available. I would not go as far to call it unbiased, it leans right, for sure. But the other stations are just owned by the liberals, 97% negative about POTUS. Beyond biased, just stinky poop 24/7.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Nothing is without bias.
It is the people that think they are not biased I have found to be the most biased and hypocritical of all.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“Fox News, which is of course, the least biased news available”
What is that you are smoking?
It must be addictive because you simply can not do without it, do you need a prescription?
What exactly do you think the word “biased” means?
I imagine that to you it means anything you disagree with, that makes sense when you are a narcissistic blowhard.
I recall a court case where Fox News claimed their programming is not really news and that it is entertainment. I’m sure that the subsequent news reports of this court case by competing networks are considered by yourself as fake news because everyone knows that Fox is the only true source of the unbiased news.
Hey – did you notice that Fox News no longer claims to be “Fair and Balanced”? What does this mean to you?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
lol
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You aren’t very good at this deflection thing. Maybe try more projection, you’re an expert at that.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I don’t watch or read Fox News.
But it does make your bias pretty clear to assume that because I am not on YOUR side that I am obviously on their side.
There is just no way I am not on either of your sides, is there? Just call me an objective 3rd party tired of your party sycophancy, when your side does no wrong and its those other evils bastards ruining everything because WE are perfect.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Yeah – that is so obvious from that one post, isn’t it?
Do continue with your somewhat silly conclusions, I find it humorous.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You said sycophant again. Minus ten points from Sltherin.
I applaud the appeals court for upholding his sentence. Hackers are despicable as my own website was also defaced by some idiot who elected to force me to switch to new security software for my site when the software I was running worked perfectly fine (he utilized a script vulnerability in my website that has since been fixed by the developers of the software I use).
If you hack a website, then you deserve to be tossed in jail.
Re: Re:
“force me to switch to new security software for my site when the software I was running worked perfectly fine (he utilized a script vulnerability in my website that has since been fixed by the developers of the software I use)”
Apologies here, but this seem a little fishy. Could you clarify for me?
– Which piece of software did you switch to? You state that it’s security software, but also state that it had a vulnerability capable of bringing down your entire site when it was exploited. That seems to contradict the “working perfectly fine” statement if the original was focused on security.
– You state that the exploit was fixed in the “software you use”. Do you mean that you switched back again to the original software once the patch was issued? If so, why did you decide to switch the software completely to a different vendor that may have had similar vulnerabilities?
– What were the timescales and losses involved? The suggestion is that it wasn’t a short-term outage, so I’m curious as to what drove you to redevelop your site twice to include different software, rather than switch providers or insert some mitigation to avoid the exploit from happening again before the patch was available on the original.
I appreciate the emotional response if you’ve been the victim of an exploit, but what you’ve stated really doesn’t add up. It would be nice to have further details.
“If you hack a website, then you deserve to be tossed in jail.”
Oh, and as people seem to be missing, the first line in this article and headline of the original inked article clarify that he didn’t hack the site himself. He supplied details to those who did, but he didn’t perform the hack. Does this change your opinion as to the proportional punishment?
Re: Re: Re:
“Fishy”? Are you Techdirt Counter Intelligence? Oh yeah, the lady pretending to be a man, I remember you. You’re friends with MyNameHere.
Toss him in jail, he’s a criminal. That’s the right thing to do, yes.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, if you’re going to keep hallucinating my gender, it’s perhaps understandable that you’ll also openly support authoritarians locking people up for arbitrary sentences and reasons. How dare I question them!
Anyway, my questions were aimed at the first AC and his questionable tale and not the story of Keys. It seems like a very unlikely yarn, but I’m happy to be proven wrong if someone other than the troll brigade fancies responding.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I think MyNameHere spotted you as a lady, too, right? He’s a perceptive fellow, yes he is. Well spoken, too. I heard he’s got a PhD in something, or maybe he’s a surgeon or a psychiatrist or something like that, very prestigious fellow, that’s what I heard. I think a linguist, maybe that’s what it was, an expert at spotting ladies posing as man. Something like that.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Well, if that’s what you heard he needs his money back since his diagnosis is wrong on this occasion.
But, I do wonder why you people are so obsessed with gender. I mean, which chromosomes I have mean nothing in regard to the arguments made on a tech forum. But, here you are apparently claiming that it’s more important than any other words I say. Rather strange.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Yes, I understand your confusion. My ex-wife had the same problem. After years of analysis, support, reflection, inspection, study and experimentation, I reached the same conclusion as all other men – ladies are different. They look different, they think different, and they post different. They get obsessive about different things, and their feelings are different. For example, they avoid questions about their sex, they deflect and defer and prefer to never address the issue directly, especially when posing as men. Men posing as women are easy to spot, they turn everything sexual in order to manipulate their target.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Well, most people do avoid questions about their sex when the subject is technology and legal matter. It’s not only a very strange thing to bring up, but it has no bearing on the actual conversation.
But, I’m not surprised you’re no longer married, even if you have found a rather strange way to overcome your loss. Perhaps you need to find a hobby other than obsessing over the gender of commenters on tech sites?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Maybe. But this hobby is sure fun. Fun for you too, I hope. You seem a little tense sometimes, maybe a little repressed and inappropriately emotional when people don’t see things your way. If you were a little more open to new ideas, and other points of view, I think you would be a happier person.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“If you were a little more open to new ideas, and other points of view, I think you would be a happier person.”
lol.. You must be new hear? The self riotous indignation that flowith from the hard line commenters here is incurable. To tell you the truth, I’m glad. It’s what keeps me reading the comments. Just when they think they’ve reached self righteous bliss, one of them will say something clever and they’ll fall all over each other modding themselves up with the insightful button. It’s fantastic to watch.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Hear here heare!
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
“self riotous indignation” – lol good one
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Ladyboi troubles again hamilton? You know it’s ok to be gay, no one cares. Making excuses for why you keep ending up in compromising positions with men is just beneath you.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Well, at least I have finally found another American Conservative, probably a Republican, right? We are the party that accepts both old white rich men AND trans genders, gay people, straight people, and all the rest. Republicans, unlike Democrats, accept everybody with apology, as repeatedly demonstrated by our great American President, Donald J. Trump. Welcome, fellow Republican. No apology required if you’re a Republican, to anyone, for anything. That’s the attitude here, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Be all you can be. MAGA.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Did you guys hear about the Free Apology offered by President Donald J. Trump? I’m not sure it’s real (might be fake news), but here is what I heard:
Upon your official application to the Republican Party being accepted, you are entitled to receive One Free Apology for any actual or imagined slight that you wish to drone on about in detail. At the “Free” level, you will receive a personal apology not to exceed 5 minutes from a Certified Apologist of the Republican Party. Longer and even more professional apologies are available for a fee, including the Grand Pubah Apology given by Donald J. Trump himself in the Lincoln Room at the White House. Please inquire for prices.
I think this will help a lot to get people what they really need, and then get them enrolled in the Republican Party. You know I think we need an additional slogan to MAGA – how about MYR – sounds like “meer”, it means Make Yourself Rich. That’s a good slogan, right? Remove the regulations, lower the taxes, get the government out of the way, accelerate the opportunities for us hard working individuals so money moves faster to the hands of those who deserve it. MAGA – MYR ! yay!
Re: Re:
If you hack a website, then you deserve to be tossed in jail.
Good point. We don’t have enough people who commit non-violent crimes packed into prisons. There’s a particular shortage of script kiddies who’ve digitally spray-painted ‘U p0wned’ on someone’s blog. Existential threat to national security right there, feeding our devolution into anarcho-linuxian debauchery.
Re: Re: Re:
Your points are immaterial. As a society, we must establish standards for behavior, and punish those who operate outside the law. Simple as that.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And how many laws have you broken today, grasshopper. Because the chances that you have broken at least one of the many thousands of laws on the books is very high.
So by your own judgement, you should be thrown in jail for the term of your natural life for you have operated outside of the law and must be punished.
Law without justice and mercy is law that will make you a slave. Pile law upon law and there becomes no avenue for freedom, just fear and terror.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You are being too black and white, in my humble opinion. Proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that’s the standard. And usually, you have to prove intent. Personally, I have not intended to break any laws today. Yesterday either, and probably not tomorrow. It’s a pretty unusual day, actually, when I intend to break a law.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“I have not intended to break any laws today”
Does not matter whether you intended to or not
Go To Jail – Go Directly To Jail – Do Not Collect $200
You may have not broken any laws that you are aware of, how many does that leave that you are not aware of and possibly have broken?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You miss the point. There are so many laws on the books that require no intent, just by breaking them you are guilty.
Consider the the basic principle in court for the citizens is that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”. Yet ignorance is what is maintained because the law is so complex. Just to give you an example, the Torah has 600+ laws/rules/regulations. This has been enormously expanded over time by those great lawyers, the Rabbis. But compared to the legislators of today, the applicable Jewish laws are very few. When a single piece of legislations grows from 80 pages to over 20,000 pages (with the increase in the number of laws, rules and regulations to thousands upon thousands), we have created a situation where anything other than ignorance is not possible. Apply this to the thousands of sets of legislations that has been brought into existence and to which more is being added to every day.
Consider that the prosecutors want “way over the top” punishments for the smallest of crimes for everyone who has no influence.
Consider also, how many things were normal day to day activities and are now crimes.
Consider that the legislators write the law in the broadest sense possible and generally pile more and more law on the existing law without considering the full impacts of what they are doing.
Consider that there is little rationality about what is written into law.
Consider how many judges are wise enough to dispense justice and mercy, or even if they are allowed to.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
OK, I’ve considered it. Now what? Anarchy?
Re: Re: Re:2 three felonies a day
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 your daily average.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We should also punish people within proportional standards compared to the impact and nature of their crime. Many are disagreeing that this is true here. Questions are raised, that should be intelligently discussed within the contexts of his crime and what effect it had.
Yet, we’re swamped with ACs who are apparently trying to pretend that people are asking him to not be punished at all. Strange, that.
Re: Re:
Do you agree with some of the more mis-informed that changing a URL is hacking?
Everyone left because of Chippy?
What does the FOX 40 rewards program have to do with an LA Times website defacement other than the tangential fact that they are both entities of Tribune Media? A quick lookup shows FOX 40 isn’t in LA, it’s in Sacramento. Sounds like a really thin correlation stretched to be causation.
Re: Everyone left because of Chippy?
Keys was a web producer at Fox 40/KTXL, and being part of the same conglomerate the two companies likely had shared access to some of the systems if not the whole backend platform. Geographical location is irrelevant when you’re remotely accessing websites.
There’s things to be suspicious about here, but his access to the Times really isn’t one of them. From what I understand, they verified that his login was used.
Re: Re: Everyone left because of Chippy?
I was on my phone earlier when I posed the question.
I’m a developer so access sharing of CRMs between businesses under the same umbrella is not lost on me. What I was wondering is how they don’t state he destroyed the FOX40 rewards info (which would be digital destruction of property or vandalism), just that all the people left because of the virtual vandalism to a site that is mostly unrelated as far as the public is concerned. There has to be more to it than “40 miinutes of vandalism to a site for another city made all of these people stop using this rewards program and it cost us $200k to undo that damage”. That part of the story doesn’t make sense to me.
Re: Re: Re: Everyone left because of Chippy?
“There has to be more to it than “40 miinutes of vandalism to a site for another city made all of these people stop using this rewards program and it cost us $200k to undo that damage”.
Why? The location of the site is irrelevant, only whether or not the guys could access the site with the credentials Keys supplied them (which they could). The damages themselves are questionable, as is Keys’ full responsibility for the hack, but the idea that it happened and the guy working at a different company was responsible is not really in question.
What specifically do you have a problem with, other than Fox40 not being in LA (which is irrelevant)?
Re: Re: Re:2 Everyone left because of Chippy?
It sounds to me like he has a problem with the idea that the defacement of a Website not directly related to the FOX 40 rewards program – at least not in the public mind – would lead people to leave that program.
I’m not familiar with either the site or the program themselves, so I can’t be sure that makes sense with the underlying facts, but that’s how I interpret his comments.
There was some politician who once suggested that a hackerz computer should be blown up – remotely. What a dumb idea.
Re: Off-topic trivia [was ]
You are probably mis-remembering — “Senator Endorses Destroying Computers Of Downloaders” (by Mike Masnick, Techdirt, Jun 17, 2003).
(Dead hyperlink omitted.)
Utah’s senior senator should not be mis-remembered.
Re: Re: Off-topic trivia [was ]
Oh – sorry.
Please replace “blow up” with “destroy”.
I feel so much better now.
Re: Re: Re: Off-topic trivia [was ]
No, that’s not it. The “blow up” part is reported in other stories.
Re: Re: Re: Off-topic trivia [was ]
(Oops, sloppy-focused “preview” on my last comment, and got “submit” instead, before I was done with that reply. Well, everyone makes mistakes, right? Anyhow, where was I…)
Senator Hatch apparently wasn’t confusing “pirates“ with “hackerz”. So you shouldn’t confuse them either. It’s not a super-duper big deal, but there is some significant difference.
Senator Hatch wanted to blow up computers belonging to copyright scofflaws. Remember that.
From the 2003 Techdirt story, again:
(Emphasis added.)
Remember that.
how absolutely ridiculous but typical of USA ‘JUSTICE’ system! when it comes to something trivial, all the stops are pulled out, the prosecution goes relentlessly straight for the jugular and doesn’t let go until all blood has been drained! yet, when a company does something that totally screws customers, like SONY removing the very thing that most people bought the playstation for, the alternative O/S, or when the banks bankrupt hundreds of thousands of people, ruining them, stealing their houses, making them lose their jobs, or the likes of Verizon, AT&T etc stealing peoples identities without permission, stealing money in extra fees that customers haven’t signed up for or stopping broadband competition through bribary of elected politicians NOT A FUCKING THING IS DONE! NOT A CHARGE IS MADE, LET ALONE AN ARREST OR PROSECUTION! if ever their was a corrupt country, forget about China, Iran etc and look closer to home! the government and legal system is more corrupt than the rest put together!!
Re: Re:
I have to admit, even though I love my country, there is some truth to that. More could be done, no doubt. Personally, I also think it inexcusable that Clinton was “let off” after Comey publicly detailed her crimes. There is a lot wrong with this country, you are right about that. Wells Fargo did get a big fine for screwing everybody recently, that was something. Maybe Trump can help straighten some things out, or Jeff Sessions. You do make some good points, though, maybe a little more dramatically than I would, but good points all the same.
Re: Re: Re:
Big fine? — LOL
slap on the wrist is more like it – bad boy!
How many bankers are in jail as a result of their world wide market melt down? How many of them were subject to indictment? How many were even investigated? How much did those assholes pocket as a direct result of their scams?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, truth be told “those assholes” pocketed a lot. Bonuses, incentives, severance packages, on and on. A whole lot, actually, and a lot of the money came from taxpayers, then, now, and in the future.
Re: Re:
I have to say, the whole housing thing is because of Government. Not the Banks. It’s the Government thinking everyone should own their own House and forcing Banks to give loans to people would could never afford it otherwise.
Doing that of course increased Demand, which increased Home prices, and you now have your housing bubble, which in the end popped. Banks sure don’t want to lose money. So they’re only going to normally give loans to those they think will pay them back. I saw it coming. I couldn’t afford a house at the prices they were going for. Way to much for what you were getting. So I waited and waited and when it finally popped, I got my house. Since then my house is worth almost double what I paid for it. Which is why nothing happened to the banks, it was the Government that created the problem. Are they going to throw themselves into jail? No!
Sony got fined to the whole OS thing int he Playstaton and you could get some money back because of that, though not easy, and like always the lawyers end up with most of it.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I kind of saw it the same way, the government basically told the banks to close their eyes and hand out all the money they wanted to home buyers, and the prices went to the moon based on people buying houses they could not afford (at all). Then when the prices collapsed, people walked away from their mortgages, the government handed out a bunch of money to the banks, and ran interest at close to 0% for a LONG time. Huge transfer of wealth to someone, not me. Sounds like you got in at the right time, though.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s the story you were supposed to read and believe but that is fake news – right?
Did you mention the fake ratings of those securities which bundled high risk loans?
Did you mention their shorting of stock of those who purchased their high risk securities that were falsely claimed as being low risk?
Yeah, it was all the fault of those lazy people thinking they deserve a hand out.
If…
"… the software I was running worked perfectly fine…"
how was
"… my own website was also defaced by some idiot…"
Paying for supervised alarm services makes me unhappy, since my building has never been broken into; but I do it anyway. Can’t be angry about fixing poor site security, much less after you’ve been breached.
he didn't actually perform himself
I don’t think it matters that he did not do the defacement himself.
He intentionally shared his credentials to the person(s) who did do that damage. All parties involved with this criminal act should be awarded the same exact punishment.
I do agree that the punishment seems excessive and does not seem to fit the crime. But he and person(s) unknown do deserve equal punishment for the entire crime.