[cschep]

Ha, I was just thinking the same thing. Also, if we're talking pure logistics, don't jump off the BIKE either.

Perhaps we should consider the fact that the secret service was involved.. I bet that guy is pretty fast. I don't know why I think that though, just seems more "tough".

Another thing: Aaron is a really important person to have writing/researching/hacking outside of prison. Surely it's a net win to just pay a faster/sneakier kid to do this for him? Do you think he thought for one second he might get caught?

35 YEARS IN PRISON? Avon Barksdale is only serving seven! :)

[nkassis]

They might ask for 35 years but if the judge gives him 35 years i'd go out to the prison with some free Aaron signs and do a hunger strike.

I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one. That would be outrageous. Actually any jail time would be ridiculous, he's not a dangerous person at all.

[gst]

There are many crimes for which you can go to jail even though you are not a dangerous person.

[dsmithn]

Yes, but crimes that have the potential to benefit people without hurting anyone else?

[gst]

Some of them - not all. Just look at all those drug-related laws.

[moonlighter]

It is just me, or does a 35 year old prison term sound CRAZY? Never mind the proposed monetary fine... the punishment just doesn't seem to fit the crime. It's outrageous.

To put things into perspective...

- Swartz, 24, faces 35 years in prison and a $1 million fine under the indictment.

- Anders Breivik killed at least 76 people, and the maximum punishment under Norwegian law is 21 years (albeit with the option to extend it for 5 years each after that).

Who committed the bigger and more serious crime here??

[smallblacksun]

Its a false comparison due to different legal systems. In the US Breivik would be facing multiple life sentences or the death penalty.

[wisty]

Drugs still hurt people. DOSing a library doesn't. Obviously that depends on which drugs and how many, and maybe the laws are a little "one-size-fits-all" here.

[ma2rten]

... especially in the US

[burgerbrain]

And all of those are instances of unjust punishment.

[tedunangst]

I'm reminded of the Boston Legal episode where the defendant kills his mother and they argue that he's not a danger to society because he only had one mother and is therefore not going to repeat his crime.

More seriously, I'm not sure if I should interpret your statement to mean that white collar criminals are dangerous or that they should never go to jail.

[burgerbrain]

Someone mentally unhinged enough to kill his own mother clearly is a danger to society though, unless there was a strong case that she deserved it. In that case, sure. No sense in putting him in physical harms way by putting him in jail.

Imprisonment as a punishment is a horrendously barbaric concept, particularly considering the current state of the American prison system. White collar criminals, or any color collar, if not a physical danger to society, should never be sent into those hellholes.

Prisons should be used solely for isolation. People like Charles Manson clearly need to be detained. Treatment, where deemed possible and necessary, should be done in proper medical facilities. People who don't need treatment and are not a danger to society should be in neither.

If their crimes are financial, punish them financially. Strip them of their assets and garnish their wages. It works for deadbeat parents (who I absolutely oppose putting into prisons).

[nkassis]

I agree with this. I think better ways could be found for them to repay their debt to society. It would be cheaper also.

[bh42222]

I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one.

But I am sure you would be one of very few. This is sadly the world we live in.

[burgerbrain]

"35 YEARS IN PRISON? Avon Barksdale is only serving seven! :)"

So... where is tptacek assuring us all that he won't spend a night in jail?

[wisty]

35 years is the upper limit for wire fraud. Hopefully, that should only be used on people who cause serious privacy violations, national security leaks, massive data loss, etc.

Actually, if he's accused of wire fraud, his lawyers might get him off; as I don't think he did anything fraudulent. At what point did he misrepresent a fact, which was relied upon by the victim causing losses? He lied about his name, but that didn't cause the loss. He lied about his IP number, but I think he simply represented his IP number to be a "John Doe" - any other number than the one that was blocked; not the IP number of a privileged user. I would debate that nobody expects your IP number to remain constant under all circumstances anyway, unless you have a privileged IP which the admins have specifically greenlisted.

So how did his "lies" (dummy name, and maybe a dummy IP number) cause any losses?

And is changing your IP number to some other random IP (once or twice, not in an automated way) really misrepresenting a material fact?

[iends]

You ruined The Wire for me. I just started watching season 1.

[reitzensteinm]

He ruined 1% of it. Keep going :)

[idlewords]

Dumbledore kills McNulty!

[zeeg]

Omar died :(