bit-tech.net

Jeremy Hammond gets 10 years in jail for Stratfor Hack

Jeremy Hammond gets 10 years in jail for Stratfor Hack

Jeremy Hammond

Jeremy Hammond, the hacker that broke into surveillance firm, Stratfor, and stole credit card information and confidential emails has been sentenced to 10 years in jail.

The sentence was the maximum allowed and will be followed by three years of supervised release.

Hammond plead guilty, to obtaining credit card numbers and internal emails containing information regarding the company's surveillance of political protesters on behalf of both private companies and governments, but no leniency was given.

The case has caused particular controversy as presiding Judge Preska has been accused of having a conflict of interest due to her husband's credit card number being among those leaked.

Hammond, 28, from Chicago passed on the information to the hacking collective Anonymous where the card details were used to make over $1million of donations to charities. Some of the 900,000 emails were also passed on to news outlets who published some of the leaked material.

"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." said Hammond in May of this year, when he plead guilty via his own Free Jeremy Hammond website.

Hammond was caught almost immediately after the hack, in June 2011, after contacting LulzSec member, Hector Monsegur (Sabu), and asking him to store the stolen data on his servers. However, by this time Monsegur had already been arrested and turned informant for the FBI.

40 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
SuicideNeil 15th November 2013, 19:23 Quote
Double standards ftw; perfectly fine for governments to hack & spy on their own people and foreign governments, but as soon as one of the people hacks the hackers...

Gotta love donating the stolen money to charity- genius work & 10 years is bullsh*t.
Hustler 15th November 2013, 19:45 Quote
American Justice....there's an oxymoron if ever there was.

It's not about justice over there, it's about business, money and whether you can afford a good enough lawyer to get you off anything.

When you turn your justice system into a business, you have no right to pass judgement on anyone or anything.

Seriously, you couldn't pay me enough to live over there, because unless you have enough millions in the bank, your just one step away from destitution.
Evolutionsic 15th November 2013, 19:46 Quote
Should not have done that...

I should not have done that...

He's certainly going to have allot of catching up to do when he gets out.
tuk 15th November 2013, 20:43 Quote
Now lets see if Dave Cameron's friend(R. Brooks) & ex Tory party communications director(A Coulson) ...get anywhere near 10years for their hacking.
greypilgers 15th November 2013, 20:44 Quote
Whether right or wrong morally is one thing, but legally was wrong, and using stolen financial details to donate money to charities is still wrong and the charities involved I'm sure we're none too happy to be dragged into the situation, having funds sent to them illegally... I still think whilst some of these fools' hearts might be in the right place, their methods and some of their results belie their immaturity and lack of understanding of the bigger picture.
theshadow2001 15th November 2013, 20:50 Quote
Guy involved in 1 million dollars plus worth of credit card fraud gets 10 years. Sounds about right to me
tuk 15th November 2013, 20:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by theshadow2001
Guy involved in 1 million dollars plus worth of credit card fraud gets 10 years. Sounds about right to me

About the same as rape/murder then?

Meanwhile MP's defraud the tax payer for millions in expenses & get a stern email as punishment.
fix-the-spade 15th November 2013, 23:31 Quote
I hope he's going to appeal, there's got to be some kind of rule against the presiding judge being closely involved with the victim, max sentence for a guilty plea is pure spite.
.
As for what he did, utter idiot, deserves to be in jail, but the sentence is excessive.
Nexxo 15th November 2013, 23:54 Quote
Since there is an obvious conflict of interest (judge's husband was one of the fraud victims), the trial is illegal and the sentence invalid. Justice was not served.
Corky42 16th November 2013, 10:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Since there is an obvious conflict of interest (judge's husband was one of the fraud victims), the trial is illegal and the sentence invalid. Justice was not served.

Like justice is served all to often then ?
theshadow2001 16th November 2013, 11:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk
About the same as rape/murder then?

Your absolutely right. Rapists and murders should get longer than that.
jrs77 16th November 2013, 12:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Since there is an obvious conflict of interest (judge's husband was one of the fraud victims), the trial is illegal and the sentence invalid. Justice was not served.

This exactly. A judge with personal involvement would never be allowed to judge over here. It would be an automatic mistrial, even if someone found out years afterwards.

Anyways. Hacking is illegal and people know it no matter what the intention.

The only thing I find funny is the length of the sentence, when we compare that to other sentences... Five years maximum is what he would've gotten over here.
crudbreeder 18th November 2013, 08:24 Quote
When I first read the headline I thought it said "Richard Hammond".
ZoomRGS 18th November 2013, 10:37 Quote
The case has caused particular controversy as presiding Judge Preska has been accused of having a conflict of interest due to her husband's credit card number being among those leaked.

Didn't they think she would have been prejudiced on hearing her husband's details................. no matter how much she tries to hide it. I wonder how she got to preside the case in the first place. Well I guess they would have said, "who cares. The lad committed a crime anyway".
tuk 18th November 2013, 11:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by theshadow2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by theshadow2001
Guy involved in 1 million dollars plus worth of credit card fraud gets 10 years. Sounds about right to me
Quote:
About the same as rape/murder then?
Your absolutely right. Rapists and murders should get longer than that.

You should move to the states and fill your jack boots, highest prison population in the world but their crime rate is still sky high.

But getting back to this story, a kid hacked a company which makes its money from wars, then donated the hacked money to the Red Cross, knowing full well the money would eventually be given back to the owners ..no one was hurt, nothing was stolen that wasn't returned, so just a geeky publicity stunt really.

Putting a geek in gen. pop. for 10 years for a victimless crime is way too over the top, they could have forced him to teach IT support at community college on min. wage for 2 years ...would have been a much more humane, balanced and productive punishment.

Of course, this is all conjecture until he is found guilty following a fair trial.
Lance 18th November 2013, 11:34 Quote
It's not a victim-less crime.

I work in the accounts department for a charity, and it would not be very much fun having a load of criminal transactions hitting the bank, and then having to sort it out. That's a lot of work that someone could be putting to much better use, especially in a charity.

Criminal gets jail time, good. If you want to make a difference do it without breaking the law or risk the consequences. Go into politics, campaign to your local candidate etc and start trying to make a real impact.
GeorgeStorm 18th November 2013, 12:50 Quote
The sentence does seem stupid in that the judge was related to the crime, I also think the sentence may be a too long, but I completely agree he should be punished.
tuk 18th November 2013, 14:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance
It's not a victim-less crime.

I work in the accounts department for a charity, and it would not be very much fun having a load of criminal transactions hitting the bank, and then having to sort it out. That's a lot of work that someone could be putting to much better use, especially in a charity.

I think the little bit of admin involved would be cancelled out by the free global advertising generated by the story ..but the little bit of extra admin work doesn't create a victim, that would need to involve an actual human individual suffering some great personal loss which would then merit sending a young person to prison and ruining their life.
Quote:
Criminal gets jail time, good.
Except it wasn't a fair trial ..yet you and others are rushing to applaud the sentence.
Quote:
If you want to make a difference do it without breaking the law or risk the consequences. Go into politics, campaign to your local candidate etc and start trying to make a real impact.
...& they all lived happily ever after in a big castle at the end of the rainbow.

Meanwhile back in the real world, not so long ago it was illegal for two men to have sex, so following your iron clad logic they are criminals and should have been sent to prison for breaking the law right? ..sometimes you have to break the law for what you believe in, the history of human rights is littered with examples of people willing to do this in order to bring about change.

Obviously some people are struggling to differentiate between a highly organised criminal gang stealing money from credit cards for their own gain & a bright, geeky kid trying to make a political point.
theshadow2001 18th November 2013, 16:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk
You should move to the states and fill your jack boots, highest prison population in the world but their crime rate is still sky

Nah. I don't think a penal system is a good enough reason to relocate to a new country.
Lance 18th November 2013, 16:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk
I think the little bit of admin involved would be cancelled out by the free global advertising generated by the story ..but the little bit of extra admin work doesn't create a victim, that would need to involve an actual human individual suffering some great personal loss which would then merit sending a young person to prison and ruining their life.

When you drop your cash into the bucket do you want to know that £12 of that is going to me sorting out a criminals activity rather than helping my charity to help others? Charities are not blockbuster films, they don't strive on negative press and they don't like to be dragged into criminal activities. We have to make sure that our books are squeeky clean or we're going to have a bad time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk


Except it wasn't a fair trial ..yet you and others are rushing to applaud the sentence.

This is your only point. But lets be honest, when someone strikes such a large group its hard to find someone who wasn't affected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk

...& they all lived happily ever after in a big castle at the end of the rainbow.

No, but they didn't steal money from thousands of people and upset the people they're supposed to be helping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk

Meanwhile back in the real world, not so long ago it was illegal for two men to have sex, so following your iron clad logic they are criminals and should have been sent to prison for breaking the law right? ..sometimes you have to break the law for what you believe in, the history of human rights is littered with examples of people willing to do this in order to bring about change.

If you want to break the law quietly with the love of your life fine by me, but please don't force it upon me, statement works for both hacking computers and gay sex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk
Obviously some people are struggling to differentiate between a highly organised criminal gang stealing money from credit cards for their own gain & a bright, geeky kid trying to make a political point.

Whats the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?

At the end of the day the law is the law, if you break it you go to jail. If we later discover that he was wrongfully imprisoned I'm sure this young man will get a lovely pay off, and can go and live at the rainbow you mentioned because his "hacktivist" activities have saved the world from the oppressive system and I will eat my hat. Until that time, people who hack companies, steal money and force their crimes onto charities can rot in jail.



--------------------------------

Am I the only person who find the above type of reply really irritating? Tuk seems to like to do it in every thread he posts in. Also hasn't Tuk been banned a few times already?
tuk 18th November 2013, 16:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance
When you drop your cash into the bucket do you want to know that £12 of that is going to me sorting out a criminals activity rather than helping my charity to help others?
I don't drop money in buckets, charities are some of the biggest criminals on the planet with only a tiny percentage of donations going to the people they are meant for.
Quote:
Charities are not blockbuster films, they don't strive on negative press and they don't like to be dragged into criminal activities. We have to make sure that our books are squeeky clean or we're going to have a bad time.
Publicity is publicity ..how does this kid effect your books, are you even clear on what he did?
Quote:

This is your only point.
Try counting again.
Quote:
But lets be honest, when someone strikes such a large group its hard to find someone who wasn't affected.
Lets be really honest ...can you list the people who were effected? no didn't think so. Did you really say its hard to find someone who hasn't been effected by this? ..how about the entire bit-tech membership for starters. He hacked a site which makes it money from selling intelligence to the US military.
Quote:
No, but they didn't steal money from thousands of people and upset the people they're supposed to be helping.
I agree ..they didn't steal money from thousands of people and upset the people they're supposed to be helping.
Quote:

If you want to break the law quietly with the love of your life fine by me, but please don't force it upon me, statement works for both hacking computers and gay sex.
This comment says everything about you ....blindly following a law whether it is right or wrong, so in Lance world if being gay is illegal you should go to prison for having gay sex ...WOW!.
Quote:

Whats the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?
off topic & completely unrelated ...who has this kid hurt? ..did he use weapons or violence?
---------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance
Am I the only person who find the above type of reply really irritating? Tuk seems to like to do it in every thread he posts in. Also hasn't Tuk been banned a few times already?
Feeling insecure about your pov much, trying to rally the bandwagon? ...assuming cos I don't agree with you I must have been banned before :D:D:D. ..ffs grow up.

You're feeling irritated cos I don't agree with your backward and publicly voiced opinion. ..it's called the internet, get over yourself.
chewbaccas_nan 18th November 2013, 16:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by crudbreeder
When I first read the headline I thought it said "Richard Hammond".

He couldn't even reach the On/Off button on his PC..
GeorgeStorm 18th November 2013, 16:55 Quote
You're not the only one Lance, most of the posts I've seen from Tuk seem to be worded to deliberately annoy people.

With regards to it not being a fair trial, that doesn't stop me thinking it was right he should go to prison, it doesn't suddenly mean I think it's ok that judge was related to the case.
tuk 18th November 2013, 17:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeStorm
....most of the posts I've seen from Tuk are worded to deliberately annoy people.

Utter bollocks, people get annoyed so it must be someone else to blame?

How exactly do you know this is my main motivation George? ..are you sure you're not just trolling?

I don't conform to the bit-tech adolescent clique is all, I have my own opinion & not afraid to express it, maybe its this strange phenomena that causes discomfort for some.
tuk 18th November 2013, 17:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeStorm

With regards to it not being a fair trial, that doesn't stop me thinking it was right he should go to prison

Seriously?????????? ...it's like shooting fish in a barrel on here sometimes.

Whoever is paying you 21k in this climate is being ripped off.
GeorgeStorm 18th November 2013, 17:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk
Utter bollocks, people get annoyed so it must be someone else to blame?

How exactly do you know this is my main motivation George? ..are you sure you're not just trolling?

I don't conform to the bit-tech adolescent clique is all, I have my own opinion, maybe its this strange phenomena that causes discomfort for some.
I'm just saying what I've noticed, it's my opinion, feel free to disagree :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk
Seriously?????????? ...it's like shooting fish in a barrel on here sometimes.

Whoever is paying you 21k in this climate is being ripped off.
They probably are, but that's not really the point. What was wrong about my comment?
tuk 18th November 2013, 17:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeStorm
I'm just saying what I've noticed,
How exactly does one notice a motivation over the internet george?
Quote:

What was wrong about my comment?
You still think he should go to jail even though you know his trial was rigged?
Lance 18th November 2013, 17:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk
Seriously?????????? ...it's like shooting fish in a barrel on here sometimes.

Whoever is paying you 21k in this climate is being ripped off.

Classic trolling. Taking information gained elsewhere to offend/hurt in a personal attack.

Reporting.
GeorgeStorm 18th November 2013, 17:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk
How exactly does one notice a motivation over the internet george?


You still think he should go to jail even though you know his trial was rigged?

I've noticed your posts, and I've read them and consider them to be worded to annoy/get a rise out of people.

Based on the details that I have read, I think he should go to prison. The fact the trial wasn't fair doesn't matter, I never said I agreed with the length of the sentence, or the exact details etc.
If this thread had been made before the trial, about how he may go to prison, my opinion would be the same.
tuk 18th November 2013, 17:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance
Classic trolling. Taking information gained elsewhere to offend/hurt in a personal attack.

Reporting.

Lance ..the personal attacking started here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance
Am I the only person who find the above type of reply really irritating? Tuk seems to like to do it in every thread he posts in. Also hasn't Tuk been banned a few times already?

Then George joined in saying he knew my deepest thoughts & the real intent behind my posts.

So don't get all butt hurt when it start flying back the other way:D
GeorgeStorm 18th November 2013, 17:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk
Then George joined in saying he knew my deepest thoughts & the real intent behind my posts.

I've edited my post to hopefully stop you thinking this.
tuk 18th November 2013, 17:26 Quote
Quote:
Based on the facts that I know, I think he should go to prison. The fact the trial wasn't fair doesn't matter,

There has not been a proper trial so there aren't any real facts to know. That's what trials are for, to establish the facts.
GeorgeStorm 18th November 2013, 17:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk
There has not been a proper trial so there aren't any real facts to know. That's what trials are for, to establish the facts.

Edited again. If it turns out to be different then I have no problem in changing my opinion.
Meanmotion 18th November 2013, 17:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk
There has not been a proper trial so there aren't any real facts to know. That's what trials are for, to establish the facts.

That's a pretty wonky interpretation of the situation. The trial is dodgy because the judge that passed sentencing has a relation to a victim, but that doesn't mean that all the evidence presented in the trial is somehow false. Moreover, he's confessed to all the charges, which - unless his confession was taken under duress - suggest that all the base facts are just that.

That specific point aside, try to keep things civil on the forums. There are ways of arguing a point without getting people's heckles up.
bawjaws 18th November 2013, 17:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Since there is an obvious conflict of interest (judge's husband was one of the fraud victims), the trial is illegal and the sentence invalid. Justice was not served.

Just backing up a moment... Is this confirmed as being the case, as the article is at pains to state that there is an accusation of conflict of interest, but there's nothing (in this article at least) confirming that to be true?

Not taking sides on this, by the way, just looking for corroboration of Nexxo's statement. It goes without saying that if there has been a conflict of interest, then an appeal and retrial must follow. On the other hand, if there hasn't been a conflict of interest and the trial is deemed to have been fair, I think it's not unreasonable for a custodial sentence, although 10 years does seem pretty severe. Of course, that's just a gut feeling and it'd be interesting to see comparison with sentencing for similar crimes.
tuk 18th November 2013, 19:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meanmotion
That's a pretty wonky interpretation of the situation. The trial is dodgy because the judge that passed sentencing has a relation to a victim, but that doesn't mean that all the evidence presented in the trial is somehow false. Moreover, he's confessed to all the charges, which - unless his confession was taken under duress - suggest that all the base facts are just that.
If it was found that the judge was biased & in this case it seems to be, I mean there is a reason why they don't allow Jurors who know the parties involved outside of the court ..so why would the person in charge of the whole trial be allowed to know one of the parties on personal level ...in this case the first trial would be declared a mis-trial & a whole new trial might start, they would not, as you're suggesting, salvage & cheery pick bits&pieces from the old trial, they would instead start again with a new judge & a whole new trial.

Quote:
That specific point aside, try to keep things civil on the forums. There are ways of arguing a point without getting people's heckles up.
Yes & one of those ways is a content based discussion without personal references/attacks.

You can scroll back and see the person that started those is the same one who pressed the report button.

Or are you just conveniently starting from my response to that?

Maybe you can provide the post number where exactly you think this started? ..let me make it easy for you, which post of mine before the one below is uncivil?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance
Am I the only person who find the above type of reply really irritating? Tuk seems to like to do it in every thread he posts in. Also hasn't Tuk been banned a few times already?
Meanmotion 18th November 2013, 20:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk
...

Your response to my rebuttal of your argument says it all about what has caused others to get riled. You fail utterly to address the central point I made and then infer that I implied something other than what I said. I wasn't talking about cherry picking anything, but merely making the point that the facts that were presented at the trial remain facts, regardless of the situation of the trial. Otherwise they're simply not facts.

As to 'who started it' the tone you took in post #19 is clearly where things kicked off, with your use of accusatory language such as ".yet you and others are rushing to applaud the sentence." and "your iron clad logic".

That said, the point I raise about keeping it civil applies to all. No-one is going to get a ban for a few slightly inflammatory comments. If a pattern emerges, however...
tuk 18th November 2013, 20:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meanmotion
...but merely making the point that the facts that were presented at the trial remain facts, regardless of the situation of the trial. Otherwise they're simply not facts.

The purpose of the trial is to establish the facts in the eyes of the law, if that trial is deemed null and void because the judge was breaking the rules, then the facts established during that trial must also be null and void ...innocent until proven guilty remember, just pleading guilty is not enough, it has to be proven as a conclusion to a fair trial.
Quote:
As to 'who started it' the tone you took in post #19 is clearly where things kicked off, with your use of accusatory language such as ".yet you and others are rushing to applaud the sentence." and "your iron clad logic".
Stating facts is not kicking off, people have posted saying they agree with the jail sentence Check! ...& someone made the iron clad statement 'if you break the law you go to jail, no excuses' Check!....no, you will have to do better than that, where exactly is the personal attack?
bawjaws 18th November 2013, 20:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk
The purpose of the trial is to establish the facts in the eyes of the law, if that trial is deemed null and void because the judge was breaking the rules, then the facts established during that trial must also be null and void ...innocent until proven guilty remember, just pleading guilty is not enough, it has to be proven as a conclusion to a fair trial.

As it stands currently, the trial has been deemed to have been fair and valid, so the facts in the eyes of the law stand until such point as the verdict is appealed. Again, as it stands currently, the verdict has been "proven as a conclusion to a fair trial", so if George or anyone else wants to refer to the facts of the case, then that's fair enough imo. Whether or not the trial was fair remains to be seen - again, I'm positive that Hammond's lawyers will appeal if they think they have a case.
atlas 19th November 2013, 08:18 Quote
Man the justice system is screwed, I wouldn't even call it the "justice" system anymore.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums