Yeah, sorry to be 'that guy', but if there ever was a case of 'citation needed', this is it. Please don't get caught up in the bubble of HN/Reddit legal reporting, as it is all very myopic and biased, and a lot of it is plain wrong. Getting your information on legal issues from HN/Reddit is like getting your information on jews from Stormfront.
That's exactly my point - two cases that made the front page on two nerd sites doesn't substantiate the claim that
"By all indication anything relating to computers, hacking or security research is considered one of the "worst" crimes in the USA. Hackers seem to be getting longer sentences then career criminals these days."
The mere fact that there are just two such cases, and that everybody recites the same two cases when making such gross exaggerations as the one above, reinforces my point about living in an echo chamber.
This is only my opinion given there's always some person in the news facing dozens of years in prison for something as simple as sharing a link.
I can't be bothered to search for other similar articles I'm sure you can find them.
Now that quote is the internal monolog I imagine given the actions these people take. It may not be completely accurate or even real but it certainly fits.
If you can come up with a better explanation why the sentences for computer related crimes are so absurdly high I would gladly listen.
I don't really care much for the legal issues the law is just so complex that you can pull off a lot of horrendous shit while perfectly justifying it legally.
If you're a judge that just goes by the letter of the law without applying common sense and morality you have failed.
Can you empathize with how frustrating your posts are to somebody like me who actually knows a thing or two about law? Look, I assume you are generally an intelligent person who is capable of understanding some abstract things, given that you likely know to program since you're on this site. But your argument is Fox News level arguing:
- "my opinion..."
- "can't be bothered to search..."
- "I don't really care much for the legal issues, the law is just so complex..."
You know (by your own admittance) nothing of the underlying issues, yet you have a (somewhat) strong opinion on them based on your "feelings" and what your read left and right, and you have a completely warped view of reality on the facts in these issues. What does it take to convince you otherwise, without me having to spend hours compiling numbers or writing pages and pages of text? Is it enough to mention three-strike laws, which put people away for other offenses for decades for relatively minor property crimes? Or the explanations brought up elsewhere in this thread on the actual sentence in this case? I mean basically you're asking me to argue the 'why' for things that are plain not true.
Hey no taking my statement out of context. You make it sound like I don't understand it however what I'm saying is that it's so complex it's broken.
When you can charge anybody with a crime regardless of what they are doing something is wrong.
The fact that this "exception" and many others like it are allowed to progress this far is quite problematic regardless since not all "exceptions" get reported on by the press this extensively and it takes only one precedent to ruin it for everybody.
