Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
A hacker's story

By theboz in MLP
Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 08:27:12 PM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

One of K5's own who has posted some very interesting articles in the past went to jail last month. While Dmitry stories have been all over the media, nobody has even whispered a sound about Jesus. While it would sound stereotypical to say he was framed, there was no evidence showing that he actually committed the crimes, and there was plenty of evidence to the contrary. Of course when you are up against a government that needs a scapegoat to maintain a sense of control you end up with what happened to sil.

Read his story here.


Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o K5's own
o interestin g articles
o here
o Also by theboz


Display: Sort:
A hacker's story | 125 comments (124 topical, 1 editorial, 0 hidden)
Man that sucks. (3.42 / 7) (#1)
by typhatix on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 06:06:53 PM EST

Is anyone working to help him appeal this? Does he need donations to a defense fund? Besides saying "that's horrible" and ranting on here, is there something that can/is being done?



What I am doing, and some more links. (4.90 / 11) (#4)
by theboz on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 06:23:50 PM EST

Well, he is somewhat of an acquaintance of mine but not really someone I know well. I knew he was busted a while back but I didn't know what his sentence was until today.

Anyways, it is too late to give a defense fund, he's serving a 27 month jail sentence right now, so there's not much that can be done at this point. I am just trying to raise some awareness right now and if this story makes it, I will email his wife and ask her to check it out and see if she can comment. I have also been emailing some of the bigger news sites and such to see if they will look into it. I think that awareness is the first step and I'm not really in a position to know how to help him. Personally, I just want to show how corrupt and ignorant the government was in dealing with this case so that we can prevent it from happening in the future.

I have some more links if you want more information but I didn't want to make it into a huge MLP at this point.

The original article

Here is some information from the NIPC government website

Sil's website

Information on his conviction on the government's cybercrime website

The department of justice's webpage (basically the same as the above)

So...I really don't know what to do to help someone that is already in jail and has been judged to be guilty, but if we can put some heat on the feds that busted him and the court system that ruled unfairly by revealing what happened, that would be a good start.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Appeals? Help ? (4.25 / 4) (#69)
by Facter on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 02:59:40 PM EST

Guys - obviously if he's innocent, soemthing must be done. There are MULTIPLE discrepancies in this account, I am going to follow it up a bit more before commenting but... This has to be appealed if what is outlined in his account is true, of course,t here are always two different stories but... Harrassing of witnesses? Thats not right. Not looking at technical data as to the case? OH COME ON !!! WTF is THAT ? He wasnt even ONLINE !! Set something up, appeal it, protest it, do shit about it - this is jstu as bad as the D case. Where can I send a measley $10 to help finance an appeal ? F.

irikanji - technologicaLiteration


[ Parent ]

this is a sad story... (3.11 / 9) (#2)
by tomte on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 06:10:11 PM EST

I donīt know him, but my best wishes and possible unreligious but hearty prayers for him go out to whoever hears...
( one question, DA is the district-attorney ('Staatswanwalt' here in germany?) ? )
--
Funny. There's a brightness dial on the monitor, but the users don't get any smarter.
Yes, DA=Staatsanwalt (3.40 / 5) (#40)
by Eloquence on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 04:33:05 AM EST

[nt]
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]
Well, (3.04 / 22) (#3)
by trhurler on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 06:16:31 PM EST

There are a few things you're ignoring here.

First, that he isn't exactly a role model for the technological newbie; he readily admits to having committed various illegal acts - just not the ones the feds got him for - but he doesn't think they were wrong to commit.

Second, that his attitude is probably as much to blame for his incarceration as any scapegoating. Rather than sanely follow the advice of an attorney, after being charged, he ran his mouth in public, made fun of the people involved in the case, and so on. Not smart.

Third, that while I don't know him and he seems fairly bright, he's no Dmitry. He has basically no real achievements in the "legitimate" world, and enjoys spending his time mocking others for being "kiddies" and "crackers" while acting suspiciously like them. A couple of years spent as a sysadmin hardly qualify him as the prodigal son. Maybe he has real skills, but insofar as can be determined from public sources, he's little more than an overglorified dime a dozen lower echelon unix admin. Linus Torvalds he is not.

Fourth, related to the second point, he seems to have something of a martyr complex going.

Far be it from me to say he deserves prison, but he's not exactly a sympathetic figure, and he's not actually important in any way to anyone who doesn't personally know him, and right or wrong, if you run with the bulls, you might get gored. The kid who gets busted for drugs he didn't even know his friend had on him isn't guilty, but when he shows up in court ranting and raving and makes an ass out of himself, do you really feel sorry for him, or do you just figure maybe he'll learn given time?

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

uh, jail for being an asshole? (4.00 / 10) (#5)
by tomte on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 06:29:13 PM EST

but when he shows up in court ranting and raving and makes an ass out of himself, do you really feel sorry for him, or do you just figure maybe he'll learn given time?
 
thatīs not the point, if he is not guilty for what hes charged for he is not guilty, and being a prick is no crime, is it?
--
Funny. There's a brightness dial on the monitor, but the users don't get any smarter.
[ Parent ]
Actually, (4.66 / 3) (#22)
by Inoshiro on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 09:55:33 PM EST

"Detroit Cops Can't Bust You for Being Gay, But They Can Bust You for Being Annoying."



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
our legal system (3.00 / 6) (#33)
by Ender Ryan on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 12:48:44 AM EST

Wow, that's amazing. That just goes to show how truly fucked our legal system is. Isn't our legal system supposed to be setup to protect the rights of the majority while at the same time protecting the rights of the minority from the majority?

It seems to me that "annoying" is usually used as an adjective describing minority opinions.

Hmmm... in a world where copyright is more important than human life, wtf can you expect...


-
Exposing vast conspiracies! Experts at everything even outside our expertise! Liberators of the world from the oppression of the evil USian Empire!

We are Kuro5hin!


[ Parent ]

I can see what you are saying. (3.80 / 5) (#7)
by theboz on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 06:36:23 PM EST

However, substitute script kiddies in your rant with Democrats and you basically are ranting about yourself. :o)

He does have a big mouth which has gotten him into trouble before I believe, but that doesn't mean he should go to prison for it. The point is whether or not he committed the crimes or not. The judge isn't supposed to say, "Wow, this guy is an asshole, let's lock him up!" but rather, "Ok, this guy has broke the law and we have proof, let's lock him up."

As far as being a martyr, I'd probably do the same thing if I was going to be locked up for a couple years. Hell, everyone worried about freeing Kevin Mitnick and we all knew he was guilty of the crimes he was accused of, it's just that his punishment was not carried out in the most constitutional and fair manner.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Agreed (4.00 / 5) (#9)
by trhurler on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 06:50:55 PM EST

I specifically did say that being an ass doesn't make you deserving of jail time - but given limited time to fight and lots of potential causes, would you rather fight for a guy who deliberately makes his own life as hard as he possibly can, or someone who's doing his part to help himself?

I can tell you right now, for all my big mouth, the day I'm arrested for anything even remotely important is the day I shut up, get a lawyer, and do whatever he says until the matter is settled. After that, sure, I'll say what I want to say. Until then, not doing what that lawyer says is like carrying a metal pole in an electrical storm - right or wrong, when you get fried, you got fried.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
What effective intimidation they have. (3.85 / 7) (#28)
by elenchos on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 11:59:37 PM EST

What does that say about free speech? That you may annoy the powers that be only until they sic they're goons on you, and then you deserve what you get? It seems to me that you have to draw the line at these cases -- the assholes, like Voltaire or Larry Flynt. Otherwise the boundary of your freedom is moved uncomfortably close to your doorstep.

Hey! Read this. That is all.
[ Parent ]

No matter what you think attitude colours the case (4.00 / 4) (#38)
by Trepalium on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 02:55:15 AM EST

If someone shows contempt for the court and the legal system in general, do you think that anyone who would be on the jury and sees this would be willing to believe the defendant would have any more respect for the law? I'm not saying it's right or wrong that it happens, but judges and members of the jury are only human and can quite easily be influenced by things other than hard facts.

Your attitude does count, doesn't matter if you like it or not. Many lawyers tell clients that are pleading guilty to look remorseful, because it does help them get less severe sentences.

[ Parent ]

Sil (3.40 / 5) (#16)
by strlen on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 08:08:49 PM EST

I knew the guy myself, he's way smarter than any kurobot. He's no crack kiddie, and he didn't do anything illegal. He wrote quite clued technical documents about carnivore and about preventing DOS, and about other technically insightfull docs. He did have a drug charge on him, but with the idiocy that's WOD who hasn't. He hasn't been to prison before. And I happen to enjoy his darkly sarcastic, quasi-troll, prose as well.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
War on drugs (3.50 / 4) (#20)
by delmoi on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 09:02:47 PM EST

with the idiocy that's WOD who hasn't.

I don't. : )
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
Lack of achievement is not an indictable offense (4.33 / 6) (#24)
by Osama Bin Laden on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 10:23:48 PM EST

He has basically no real achievements in the "legitimate" world

How is this relevent? It doesn't matter whether he's Linus Torvalds or Beavis. If anything, his not-being-Linus status makes him more of a role model. This sort of shit (assuming it's true) could only happen to someone who doesn't have the prestige or connections of a "somebody". That is, it could only happen to someone like 99.9% of us. That's what makes it scary.

ObL

[ Parent ]

Well what... (4.00 / 4) (#34)
by TaoJones on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 12:50:40 AM EST

trhurler wrote:
There are a few things you're ignoring here.
Okay, I'll bite...
First, that he isn't exactly a role model for the technological newbie; he readily admits to having committed various illegal acts - just not the ones the feds got him for - but he doesn't think they were wrong to commit.
Some sort of minor drug infraction in his teens (or early 20s - he does waffle a bit on that point). *shrug* Sorry, but to me that's pretty much irrelevant. I did a bit of stupid shit back then my own self... What about you?
Second, that his attitude is probably as much to blame for his incarceration as any scapegoating. Rather than sanely follow the advice of an attorney, after being charged, he ran his mouth in public, made fun of the people involved in the case, and so on. Not smart.
Mmm, I didn't really get that out of what he wrote -yes, he talked about the whole thing in a fairly sarcastic tone, but without access to the actual transcripts of what he actually said in court what hard data are you making that point from? BTW, you are making the assumption that what his attorney told him to do was "sane" to begin with.
Third, that while I don't know him and he seems fairly bright, he's no Dmitry.
And that comparison means what, exactly? Not that we have any clue if Dmitry Sklyarov was ever busted for doing something stupid in his "early days"... Again, irrelevant.
He has basically no real achievements in the "legitimate" world, and enjoys spending his time mocking others for being "kiddies" and "crackers" while acting suspiciously like them. A couple of years spent as a sysadmin hardly qualify him as the prodigal son.
Yet another "Mmm" here - to quote from the cited article he "was offered a position as a security engineer in a company another company for close to 6 figures (75k plus perks)". Sorry, but IMHO a 75k job (while not necessarily reflecting his skills per se) seems like a pretty good gig.
Maybe he has real skills, but insofar as can be determined from public sources, he's little more than an overglorified dime a dozen lower echelon unix admin. Linus Torvalds he is not.
And an "overglorified dime a dozen lower echelon unix admin" deserves less equality under the law how, exactly? Hell, he's not Larry Wall, Donald Becker, or RMS either...
Fourth, related to the second point, he seems to have something of a martyr complex going.
See my response to your second point. This is all based on a few sources of real information, but that's the 'net for ya ;)
Far be it from me to say he deserves prison, but he's not exactly a sympathetic figure, and he's not actually important in any way to anyone who doesn't personally know him, and right or wrong,
Sorry, but I have no clue (besides the k5 article & related link) who he is, but if (& obviously it's a big "if") the data I've read is accurate, then he is important to me. That's obviously a matter of personal opinion, but when you start using phrases like "not actually important in any way to anyone who doesn't personally know him" you'll get that...
if you run with the bulls, you might get gored.
I understand the gist of the image, but again, without knowning a lot more details of the case it may or may not be relevant.
The kid who gets busted for drugs he didn't even know his friend had on him isn't guilty,
Dunno what part of the US (guessing) you're in, but realistically if it's my house/car/whatever (even if I truly don't even know the SOB in question), if it's in a "space" I control I can still be nailed for it even if I was truly oblivious to the fact that it was there. Now a lot of that boils down to the discretion of the judge and (IMHO) the boy was railroaded by a legal system that lacked the technical skills to even friggin understand the case they were presented with.
but when he shows up in court ranting and raving and makes an ass out of himself, do you really feel sorry for him, or do you just figure maybe he'll learn given time?
Again, I didn't get that from the sources presented. So what are your sources?

[ Parent ]
Well, (2.75 / 4) (#59)
by trhurler on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 11:47:58 AM EST

Most of this I'm not going to argue with, because I only really posted what I did to try to prevent people deifying the guy the way they have everyone else who knew how to type that the cops have ever hassled; he's pretty clearly gotten a raw deal - but he also almost certainly did some things that, while they should be legal, are at best questionable(there's a reason most penetration testing outfits are branches of huge security corporations with legal departments the size of Montana. Even talking about doing it could be illegal in some states if done the wrong way.)

The one point I'll take issue with is the job/salary estimation. First off, we only know what he said the salary was going to be. That doesn't mean much. Second, in NYC, if you're a techie making less than $75k a year, you're a total loser. Close to six figures there is like making $50-55k where I live in the Midwest. Don't get me wrong; it isn't at all a bad salary - but there's a complete nimrod where I work who's making almost twice what I am, too - no hiring or promotions process is perfect, and sometimes people get jobs on the strength of x years of "experience" wacking off at their desks.

All that said, the people who've had anything to say about the guy at all seem to think he's fairly sharp. That's not a big deal. My real point, and one I'll stand by, is that if you act in public like he did after being charged, even if it is not right for things to work this way, and even if it is in fact totally unfair, you have to expect that something bad is going to happen to you. As elenchos said, maybe people do need to fight these cases - but unlike what elenchos said, remember that if you do choose to fight that fight, you might lose. Then again, I doubt this guy saw himself as any kind of protester. His comments(what few I saw, anyway,) about the whole thing seemed more designed just to show contempt than to actually express any thoughtful position.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
sigh (4.00 / 5) (#86)
by SGrl on Sat Aug 11, 2001 at 12:03:30 PM EST

There are a few things you're ignoring here.

Sorry, but I think there are quite a few things you've drawn your own conclusions about, and that has nothing to do with what's really happened.

First, that he isn't exactly a role model for the technological newbie; he readily admits to having committed various illegal acts - just not the ones the feds got him for - but he doesn't think they were wrong to commit.

Care to tell me what you base that on? His drug-charge? He was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he didn't sell any drugs. He pointed someone that did sell drugs out, when asked by someone who said they wanted to buy...he did this to be left alone to mind his own business. It's illegal, but it's quite natural if you think about it.

Second, that his attitude is probably as much to blame for his incarceration as any scapegoating. Rather than sanely follow the advice of an attorney, after being charged, he ran his mouth in public, made fun of the people involved in the case, and so on. Not smart.

No. He didn't tell anyone about this for a long time. He told a few close friends, can you blame him for that? He talked with noone else about it. The post he made about going to jail was something he wrote the day before he was going in, to let people know why he was going to dissappear. He did everything the lawyer told him to do, he didn't make fun of anyone involved in the case, he didn't do anything of that effect. Sure, he posted a final goodbye, and he said what he thought of them at that point. Can you blame him? The feds came to the house in september last year, the trial took place in march, the sentecing was in early june. When did you see him mention it?

Third, that while I don't know him and he seems fairly bright, he's no Dmitry. He has basically no real achievements in the "legitimate" world, and enjoys spending his time mocking others for being "kiddies" and "crackers" while acting suspiciously like them. A couple of years spent as a sysadmin hardly qualify him as the prodigal son. Maybe he has real skills, but insofar as can be determined from public sources, he's little more than an overglorified dime a dozen lower echelon unix admin. Linus Torvalds he is not.

As you said, you don't know him. Lots of people that has a clue about who he is would disagree with your statement. He has written several very in-depth documents about various things. He is very bright. He doesn't care who knows that though, if he did, he would have made sure to post everything he has ever done, wouldn't he?

Fourth, related to the second point, he seems to have something of a martyr complex going.

Martyr complex...for saying goodbye on his site? For telling his side of a very fscked up case? You have no clue about what complexes he has or doesn't have. He seriously doesn't give a rats about what people he doesn't know thinks. He sure as hell doesn't wanna become some sort of martyr. All he cares about is letting people know why he's gonna be gone for a while, and the truth getting out about how things go down in the US, to maybe help someone else from getting shafted the same way he did. Does that make him a bad person?

Far be it from me to say he deserves prison, but he's not exactly a sympathetic figure, and he's not actually important in any way to anyone who doesn't personally know him, and right or wrong, if you run with the bulls, you might get gored.

So sil isn't a sympathetic figure? And how would you know? Because he uses strong language to get his point across when he writes stories? Because he makes smartass remarks sometimes? If you don't know him, don't make assumptions. And to tell you the truth, he seems to be damn important to a great many more people than just those who know him, if I am to judge from the amount of supportive emails I have recieved about him and the case since he went in. I still get hundreds of emails every single day regarding this.

The kid who gets busted for drugs he didn't even know his friend had on him isn't guilty, but when he shows up in court ranting and raving and makes an ass out of himself, do you really feel sorry for him, or do you just figure maybe he'll learn given time?

What has this got to do with sil? He sure didn't rant or rave in court, or outside of court either for that matter. He was very calm, nice about everything, and didn't make an ass of himself in any way. And what do you mean 'maybe he'll learn in given time?'? Learn what? That if you don't break the law, and do everything the right way, follow all instructions given by the lawyer, and don't say anything about the case in public before you go to jail, you'll get shafted? Or that the govt does as the govt wants, no matter if you're guilty of anything or not? Maybe he shouldn't have any opinions, maybe he shouldn't have a site, maybe he shouldn't know so much about comp sec, maybe he shouldn't....he didn't break any laws, he didn't scream and yell about things when they came to arrest him, he never told 'the public' about what was going on. Does that mean he deserves what he got? I don't think it does. It's been a very hard year, and he's done things the way he was instructed by the lawyer. You don't know him, and it's all too easy to think you know why someone does things the way they do, but you don't have any idea about what's been going on, or what he has done and hasn't done obviously.

[ Parent ]
Inconsistent comments (4.61 / 18) (#8)
by marx on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 06:41:01 PM EST

If we had access to the trial transcript, it would be pretty easy to determine who's lying. Here is from Jesus' story:

My ISP's representative was on the stand, and he was asked to show when I was online in accordance to when the crime occurred, and my records show I was not online.

And here is from the NIPC press release:

The trial evidence showed that on August 2 and 3, 2000, Oquendo connected to the Internet from his home and again remotely entered the Five Partner's network.

One of them is obviously lying, and it must show in the transcript who's right. If we can show that the NIPC (the plaintiff I guess?) is lying in their press release, then I guess we could at least get some bigger media attention, and/or the attention of some court or whatever, I don't know how the legal system works.

Does anyone have access to the transcript?

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.

Possible clarification (3.50 / 4) (#52)
by leviathan on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 10:09:59 AM EST

The two statements aren't strictly in conflict if we replace the first one with the next sentence from the story (my highlighting)
My phone records showed I had not made calls during some of the times the attack took place (which may have been 1-3 days)
If we take this statement to be true, it still doesn't disprove that he was connected some of the times the attacks occurred, so the NIPC statement could still be true.

--
I wish everyone was peaceful. Then I could take over the planet with a butter knife.
- Dogbert
[ Parent ]
Only phone calls, not Internet connection (4.50 / 2) (#77)
by marx on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 06:37:50 PM EST

What you mention are only phone calls, not calls to his ISP. The NIPC states that he "connected to the Internet from his home" during the time of the attack. If they somehow have some proof that his calls were to another ISP, then sure. But as far as I can see, the only ISP which testified was the one he normally used, and they said he had not connected during that period. Thus, the NIPC is still lying.

If we take this statement to be true, it still doesn't disprove that he was connected some of the times the attacks occurred, so the NIPC statement could still be true.

Yes, it could be true, but it could also not be true. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's true. If you are stating that a possibility is true, you are still lying.

Sure, maybe he doesn't have an alibi, but he is still innocent until proven guilty.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

not anymore (4.50 / 2) (#87)
by kezgin on Sat Aug 11, 2001 at 12:07:47 PM EST

but he is still innocent until proven guilty.

ideally, yes he would. but more and more it seems like guilty until proven innocent

[ Parent ]
Evidence (2.00 / 1) (#104)
by topham on Mon Aug 13, 2001 at 10:17:52 AM EST

If I have evidence to show you online between 2pm and 5pm; and you claim you were not you need to prove you were not and show there is no way you could have been. (Or, show how my data could possibly be wrong)

If you don't the Jury will believe me and not you. And they will believe they have all the necessary proof.

Innocent until proven guilty is a nice ideal, but proof isn't always as cut and dried as people wish. For instance: In this case I don't care if he is online or not. I have no reason to believe he couldn't have automated it. On the other hand, there was no evidence to show it was automated.

(My girlfriend uses a special telnet program to play an online MUD, she can walk away from it and it will walk her character around and make it do some basic things. Wish slight changes one could even add the occasional typographical error to the stream and make it look like she hasn't left the computer...)

Without posting of any case numbers, etc I actually believe this whole story is somebodies imagination.

There is an utter lack of credibility here. Somebody either has a diluted version of reality, or lacks the skills of a good writer.



[ Parent ]

Disprove your guilt! (none / 0) (#112)
by marx on Mon Aug 13, 2001 at 08:25:52 PM EST

If I have evidence to show you online between 2pm and 5pm; and you claim you were not you need to prove you were not and show there is no way you could have been.

Yes, if you have evidence, I have to disprove it. In this case however, Jesus stated that they did not have evidence. The ISP testified that the logs showed he was not connected.

In this case I don't care if he is online or not. I have no reason to believe he couldn't have automated it.

Hello 1984! For every crime committed, there are most likely several people which could have committed the crime, and which have no alibi. What you are saying is that it's ok to pick anyone of those and convict them. Can you prove that you did not commit this crime? If not, maybe I should alert the court that here we have another likely conviction candidate? There is no proof that this crime was committed by only one person, thus I'm sure we can fit some accomplices into our "possible scenario".

Without posting of any case numbers, etc I actually believe this whole story is somebodies imagination.

Yes, maybe. However, it is also possible that the NIPC is lying and that the legal system that day did not work very well. There is no way to know without those documents though.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

I wasn't suggesting anything more (none / 0) (#107)
by leviathan on Mon Aug 13, 2001 at 02:18:54 PM EST

Yes, it could be true, but it could also not be true. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's true. If you are stating that a possibility is true, you are still lying.
No, I am suggesting that a possibility is possible. You were suggesting it was a falsehood (taking his statement as true), I'm simply pointing out that even if we do believe him absolutely, it's still a possibility.

The NIPC quote you made makes no statement about all connections. How any attacks at other times could have been made is of no relevance to the (really quite simple) point I was making.

--
I wish everyone was peaceful. Then I could take over the planet with a butter knife.
- Dogbert
[ Parent ]

Implicit assumptions (none / 0) (#113)
by marx on Mon Aug 13, 2001 at 08:59:48 PM EST

I'm simply pointing out that even if we do believe him absolutely, it's still a possibility.

Yes ok. If the only evidence in the trial about his Internet connections is from his ISP, and the time the NIPC is referring to is the same time as the ISP is referring to, then there is a contradiction.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

contradictions (4.00 / 1) (#121)
by beenz on Fri Aug 17, 2001 at 09:31:45 AM EST

You never know when it comes down to the government making statements. They put whatever they want on their pressreleases to make a case seem very clear. They wouldn't want the general public think that someone they have convicted is innocent. I don't think he did it, and I think they are orgasmic by now when they got to make their first federal hackercase in that district, and it came down as guilty. It doesn't mean shit, all it means is that he lacked the funds needed to fight the government. It's pretty sad when money can either convict an innocent man, or let a guilty man (O.J.) walk.

[ Parent ]
Can he still post? (4.66 / 9) (#10)
by Blarney on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 06:55:20 PM EST

Theboz:
Would it be possible to have Sil write a K5 article or two and post it for him? Does he have postal mail privileges now?



What a shitty lawyer. (4.38 / 13) (#11)
by delmoi on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 07:11:58 PM EST

I mean really, from what I can tell his lawyer didn't put any whitnesses on the stand. He let the DA control the whole show. I hate to say it, but if I was in that jury, I probably would have thought he did it. (not without enough resonable doubt to aquit, but I'd figure he probably did it.)

And whats with the NDA stuff the DA would be asking him? Couldn't he have talked to the judge and gotten that stuff off the record... or putting a gag order.


Now, I don't know if there's some way around this or not, but A cross-examining attorney isn't allowed to ask any questions that weren't brought up in the initial questioning. I mean fuck, the guy didn't even take the stand and say "I didn't do it." Why the fuck would I think someone didn't do it if they didn't even say they didn't?
Yeh, the DA and FBI shouldn't have pressured the expert witness and all that, but fuck. This guy didn't put up a defense at all.

It's to bad this guy is in jail, but I think this has a lot more to do with an incompetent Lawyer then a corrupt legal system.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
Who Was/Is the Attorney? (3.00 / 5) (#12)
by quam on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 07:27:21 PM EST

Out of curiousity, who did JMO retain? How did JMO find him/her?

-- U.S. Patent 5443036 concerns a device for encouraging a cat to exercise by chasing a light spot.
[ Parent ]
Grounds for appeal? (4.20 / 5) (#13)
by Blarney on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 07:36:00 PM EST

An incompetant lawyer who called nobody to the stand in the defendant's defence, not even himself - or accusations of intimidating the main witness - could be grounds for a new trial.



[ Parent ]

consent? (3.60 / 5) (#19)
by klamath on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 08:54:15 PM EST

An incompetant lawyer ... could be grounds for a new trial.
IANAL (of course ;-) ), but I would guess that there has to be a very clear and blatant case of the lawyer willfully ignoring his clients interests for an appeal like that to be accepted. The client is the one who decides to retain a cerain lawyer; the client also has the power to fire an incompetent lawyer -- thus, I think that if the client doesn't do this, it is assumed that the lawyer truly represents the client's interests.

[ Parent ]
Appeal? hardly (2.00 / 1) (#105)
by topham on Mon Aug 13, 2001 at 10:43:07 AM EST

AN incompetant lawyer would not be grounds for a new trial unless the Judge felt it would be appropriate.

And it is likely the only way to Judge would feel it appropriate would be if the lawyer did something to be disbarred.

Otherwise there is virtually no action a lawyer and defendant can do to result in a new trial (or appeal even).

Only the Judge and Prosecutions actions can generally result in an Appeal.

(Even new evidence brought to light isn't grounds for an appeal in most cases.).



[ Parent ]

Cross-Examination (4.00 / 3) (#51)
by Merk00 on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 08:39:53 AM EST

Now, I don't know if there's some way around this or not, but A cross-examining attorney isn't allowed to ask any questions that weren't brought up in the initial questioning.
During cross-examination any questions can be asked by an attorney. However, during counter-cross-examination only issues addressed in previous questioning can be brought up.

------
"At FIRST we see a world where science and technology are celebrated, where kids think science is cool and dream of becoming science and technology heroes."
- FIRST Mission
[ Parent ]

Sil - keep your head up. (3.44 / 9) (#14)
by strlen on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 07:57:33 PM EST

I knew the guy on IRC. He absolutely rocks. He was always sarcastic, up untill the last moment when the feds took him out. He was not your typical "gubamit is out to get me" jerk, he was way more insightfull, always causing you to laugh out loud with his witty, sarcastic, yet serious remarks and articles. One of the feds didnt even know what an IP address was at his trial. They've tried to get him several times, and this is the first time they've suceeded. Read his site and enjoy. Sil, we remember you, hope those 27 months fly fast. Keep your head up.



--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
To contact sil (4.75 / 8) (#15)
by strlen on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 08:05:16 PM EST

Oh yeah. Sil has mail and phone priveleges, but he's deciding to keep his address and mail private. I know his wife, please avoid getting this out into the media or starting any campaigns on the web or otherwise before contacting her. That's her choice, they need to get all the details settled with the lawyers first anyways. E-mail me, if you are interested in contacting his wife, I don't want to release any of that information out without her consent.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
If I were in his shoes... (4.00 / 4) (#17)
by theboz on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 08:17:12 PM EST

I would want the world to know about it (posting it on his website is an indication of such) but I would want to keep my wife as far away from it as possible. When I was submitting this article I thought about giving her website and saying to contact her to see how to help if possible, but I tastefully left that info out. I think simply making people aware of the story that he posted is enough to start. If there is more that can be done his wife or one of his close friends can start all that up.

Anyways I guess my point is that all of this information I have posted is publicly available without harassing people and I hope that people leave her alone unless she initiates conversation about it.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Actually (3.50 / 4) (#18)
by strlen on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 08:40:24 PM EST

His wife prefers to be one the one through whom it goes. I'm not going to give her website's address or her e-mail out without asking her first post. But she's the one to contact before you do anything related to the case.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
Interested... (4.00 / 2) (#85)
by Signal 11 on Sat Aug 11, 2001 at 11:49:50 AM EST

I'm interested - I'd like to pull the transcripts. If the case was badly managed (as it sounds like it was), a media campaign and an appeal would go a long way. I'd like to help.


--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
[ Parent ]
We've seen this before (4.16 / 18) (#21)
by jonboy on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 09:53:13 PM EST

We've all seen this kind of thing happen before. Hackers are not conviced on whether or not they've committed a crime. They are convicted for being capable of a crime.

Fifteen years ago in "The Hacker's Manifesto," The Mentor said "My crime is that of outsmarting you, something you will never forgive me for." This statement is still relevant.

Sil is not the first person to be convicted in this fashion. Nor will he be the last.

The question remains as to what can be done to stop this kind of oppression. I don't know how. It seems to me that as long as public opinion is against us, we have no hope. And public opinion is against us.

Have you tried to explain the Dmitry Sklyarov case to a non-technoid? I have. The usual response is "Good. They put a hacker in jail." I've been laughed at for sympathizing with him. People don't understand. And that's our problem.
--
The above post is overrated.

Our words aren't the same as theirs. (4.40 / 5) (#35)
by Trepalium on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 02:05:06 AM EST

Part of the problem may be the fact that many of us that are intimately knowledgable with software, encryption, etc don't realize that many of the words we use are politically loaded to those who aren't in the industry. If you want to make Dmitry seem like a just and noble person, you probably will need to start by vilifying Adobe and their E-Book technology, by pointing out all the limitations they're intentionally imposing on you. You, then, need to avoid words like copy protection, crack, security, hack, hacker, etc, which have become loaded over the years of news storys about Evil Hackers Stealing Credit Cards, and movies by Hollywood that portray similar things.

They're using our own words to bury us. You may use words that you feel are neutral, but they hear words that imply criminal activity.

[ Parent ]

Loaded words: so? (4.00 / 4) (#36)
by sigwinch on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 02:48:57 AM EST

You, then, need to avoid words like copy protection, crack, security, hack, hacker, etc, which have become loaded over the years of news storys about Evil Hackers Stealing Credit Cards, and movies by Hollywood that portray similar things.
This isn't Hollywood. It is a court of law, where decisions are made on matters of fact, and the matters of fact are highly technical issues described with a specialized jargon. Just like any other specialized jargon you have to explain it to the jury, and keep from drowning them with big sentences full of the unfamiliar words. It's either that, make up new words, or resort to baby talk.

The unfortunate thing is that many lawyers will be unable to pull it off: teaching strange concepts to people takes a lot of skill, and you have to understand it yourself first.

--
I don't want the world, I just want your half.
[ Parent ]

Dmitry f'd up. (2.00 / 1) (#106)
by topham on Mon Aug 13, 2001 at 10:48:32 AM EST

Hate to say it, but Dmitry did commit a crime. (I don't agree; but then, I didn't write the law).

He wrote code which -may- violate DMCA. Then, he brought 500 (or so) diskettes containing that code (as a trial version of the software) into the United States to distribute at a conference.

He also wrote the code in questions.

None of these facts have been in dispute. And, as such he was arrested. I think they should have simply confiscated the diskettes and sent him back to Russia and then delt with the issues of wether an actual violation existed. (Never, EVER import anything into a foreign country without explicitly knowing it is legal. When you are corssing borders you have virtually NO RIGHTS.).



[ Parent ]

dammit (2.25 / 12) (#23)
by Ender Ryan on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 10:08:19 PM EST

This really hits home. Just think, this could just as easily have been ANY of us here who frequent this site.

Everyone here, no matter your political leanings, opinions, sexual preference, etc., this could have been you.

I've been somewhat interested in security recently, and I've always spoken out against carnivore. If I had gotten interested in security eariler, I could have chosen a different career path.

I've done things worse than this guy! WTF? I guess any sense of security I've had is all bullshit. There's no reason this couldn't be me, or any of us.


-
Exposing vast conspiracies! Experts at everything even outside our expertise! Liberators of the world from the oppression of the evil USian Empire!

We are Kuro5hin!


How this reads to a third party (3.66 / 24) (#25)
by kumquat on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 10:39:12 PM EST

Until a few minutes ago I knew nothing about any of this or any of the parties involved. After reading sil's rant and a few of the relevant links and commentary supplied below, you'll have to forgive me if I am not seething with moral outrage over what happened. No doubt there are significant nuances and subtleties to these incidents that I am not aware of. What follows are not my firm beliefs as to what this is all about. Rather they are impressions based on the information that has been provided.

Sil is a grey-ish hat hacker who hangs out on IRC channels where there is at least the appearence of illegal activity occurring. Sil hates many of the government's policies and is vocal about it. Sil unashamedly engages in activity that would generally cause him to be labeled a "dick" by many people. Sil is going to jail.

Well I sit ready to surrender myself in next week for a two year federal bid without regrets. I decided to fight Big Brother and lost, but at least I fought and that's what matters in my heart.

What matters most is that he fought? Fought what? Fought who? What matters is that he's going to jail. Place yourself in his shoes for a moment (we'll assume he really is innocent). You just got screwed royally and you have no regrets? You just took it up the ass (metaphorically. Literally will come later.) and the best reaction you can manage is one that can at best be described as lackadaisical?

Um, maybe it's just me, but if I were in the same situation I would be raising a whole lot more hell and creating a much bigger scene if I were in danger being sent to jail for 2 years for something I didn't do. "Oh, I have no witnesses on my side? Ok. I'll just quietly complain about the unfairness of it all after I am convicted. Yeah man, it just goes to show that the government really sucks."

Where is sil's outrage? Why should I care when it doesn't appear that he does? Do any of the facts readily available convey the idea that sil put up any sort of real fight at all?

So when you put together his hobbies, lifestyle, and apparent attitude towards everything that happened, you can really only draw one of two logical conclusions. Either he really is guilty, or (and god how I hate agreeing with trhurler), this is all a game to sil and he thinks it will be cool to boost his cred with martyrdom.

Well here's one clear fact: He's going to be incarcerated. Even if it is minimum security prison, it is still prison, and two years is a long time. 1337 hacker cred won't mean much in there, and by the time he is out nobody will remember or care why he went in.

I hope sil really does have no regrets and thinks he did the right thing, because if he is semi-passively allowing himself to be locked down for dumb reasons he will have a long time to realize what regret actually means.

what? (3.78 / 14) (#26)
by strlen on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 10:45:13 PM EST

i _KNEW_ where on IRC he was. i was in the same channels as him? #OpenBSD where i first met him? gee that's one hacker channel. i guess everyone who uses OpenBSD must be an evil hacker. and another channel he organized to discuss his site, where there's not a _SINGLE_ script kiddy there. NOT a single person there would even _CONSIDER_ intruding into privacy of others. he's no asshole, he's open minded. he's no knee jerker, and no flamer. he's no black helicopter freak. yeah, he's interested in info security. and is everyone who's interested in how locks work a thief?

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
"Feds can celebrate now woohoo (fags)" (2.14 / 7) (#27)
by kumquat on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 11:11:24 PM EST

You are ignoring the entire point of my post. Your comments are not convincing. Everything I have seen from sil is not convincing.

The subject line of this post was quoted from the now-incarcerated sil - his last post to his website and the one that linked to his verion of the story. This is an attitude you admire? Let me put this in bold, italics and all caps for you:

TWO YEARS IN FEDERAL PRISON

How can you possibly expect me to feel sorry for someone who is displaying such a flippant attitude about something so serious? Why the fuck should I care about someone who is acting like this is a big joke?

[ Parent ]

hmm (3.50 / 2) (#29)
by strlen on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 12:09:52 AM EST

so he should shoot himself? that's exactly his point. he just doesn't want to give up, doesn't want to break.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
chaah, whatever. (3.00 / 2) (#76)
by delmoi on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 05:39:42 PM EST

Why the fuck should I care about someone who is acting like this is a big joke?

I dunno. Why should I care about wether or not you care?
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
I agree (4.50 / 2) (#96)
by yesterdays children on Sun Aug 12, 2001 at 01:24:20 PM EST

Bunch of borderline activities somehow rationalized with long tirades of right/wrong technical minutia, then surprise when the juries eyes glaze over and return a guilty verdict sometime afterwards. Reminds me of Randal Schwartz.

I'm often surprised that some techie types, while able to distill truth values out of a zillion level nested whatever-type constructs, absolutely lose it when dealing with anything non-digital, like the human mind and perceptions. If you work in security, you'd better be a squeaky clean whitehat, and make damn sure you convey this image in all of your dealings. And never agree to break in _anywhere_, no matter what anybody suggests, and don't write papers on how to circumvent _anything_. Sil needs this jail time desperately. I've never seen a more deserving fellow.

Don't get me wrong, I _tried_ to be sympathetic, there are some really awful stories out there of justice gone south. But I _have_ to read any evidence like I was a jury member. I can't start out biased like your usual cracker hero glorified on sites like this, sorry.

So anyways, I head over to Sils site expecting some awful miscarriage of justice, but all I can find is rants about geriatric 70 year olds, breaking into financial companies, circumventing monitoring programs, backdoors, and some kind of beef with some antionline.com character. Then Sil of course expects to get all this stuff logically explained to your average trial jury. Oh well, he should use that 2 years to learn a job skill that he can better handle.

[ Parent ]

I don't think so (3.00 / 2) (#119)
by beenz on Fri Aug 17, 2001 at 09:07:14 AM EST

And never agree to break in _anywhere_, no matter what anybody suggests, and don't write papers on how to circumvent _anything_. Sil needs this jail time desperately. I've never seen a more deserving fellow.

What are you? A federal agent hoe wants people to think sil is some kind of bad person? Or why else would you think anyone who use their freedom of speech to write documents about programs that the government uses to tap on to that exact freedom deserves jail time desperately? Are you jealous because sil has a brain and you don't? Or why else would you think he deserves jail? Do you have any evidence he's guilty? Oh yes, guilty of speaking his mind, but that's not a crime, now is it? What happened to innocent until proven guilty beyond doubt? I for one think _you_ deserve jail time desperately, since you posted an opinion. Or wait, that's not a crime is it? You say you've never seen a more deserving fellow. How about people that actually commit crimes? How about people who rape and kill and torture, who sell drugs to kids, who beat their wives and children up every weekend? Do you really think sil deserves jail time more than them? You are one sick puppy.

Don't get me wrong, I _tried_ to be sympathetic, there are some really awful stories out there of justice gone south. But I _have_ to read any evidence like I was a jury member. I can't start out biased like your usual cracker hero glorified on sites like this, sorry.

Noones gloryfying anyone here. You say you _have_ to read any evidence like you were a jury member. Tell me, did you? Were _you_ at the trial? Or where did you decide that you had never seen a more deserving person?

So anyways, I head over to Sils site expecting some awful miscarriage of justice, but all I can find is rants about geriatric 70 year olds, breaking into financial companies, circumventing monitoring programs, backdoors, and some kind of beef with some antionline.com character. Then Sil of course expects to get all this stuff logically explained to your average trial jury.

Isn't that exactly the point here? How _do_ you explain advanced technology to someone who doesn't know anything about anything? They won't understand, unless you have a very good lawyer that explains it all in simple terms. If you had bothered reading up on this case, you would have known that sil had a federal defender, since he lacked the dollars needed to get a _real_ lawyer. You would also have known that he wrote that document to let people know his views, if not much more, about this case, and to inform the people that visit his site why he was going away. Did he deserve jail time more than anyone else in the world? No, I don't think so. Bottom line.

Oh well, he should use that 2 years to learn a job skill that he can better handle.

He is a very skilled security professional. That's beyond any kind of doubt. I think you should use these two years to learn that convicting someone for something without having evidence is wrong.

[ Parent ]
good for a grin :-) (none / 0) (#123)
by yesterdays children on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 10:51:23 AM EST

What are you? A federal agent hoe wants people to think sil is some kind of bad person?

Sure buddy, whatever you say.

Or why else would you think anyone who use their freedom of speech to write documents about programs that the government uses to tap on to that exact freedom deserves jail time desperately?

You haven't been following US society too closely have you? Outside of geek circles, there is a growing tide of approval for laws concerning behavior in the cyber-realm. Additionally, judging from the tone of your post, I don't plan to spend much time debating the complex tradeoffs between freedom and responsibility with you. Hope thats ok with you.

Are you jealous because sil has a brain and you don't?

Let me rephrase that, I don't plan to spend time debating anything with you :-D

Or why else would you think he deserves jail? Do you have any evidence he's guilty?

He sounded like he was guilty of the crime of overreaching. Security is much more than learning to smash the stack for fun and profit. This is a white hot field where missteps can be pretty catastrophic to your career. Remember Merlin the uberhacker? You have to know how to handle the suits, and keep appearances squeaky clean. How many seemingly illogical guilty verdicts does it take to convince thick skulls like yours that many legal boundaries in cyberspace are still a moving target?

Oh yes, guilty of speaking his mind, but that's not a crime, now is it?

If its in the US, you'd better damn well believe it is. These are treacherous times for the intellectually clumsy.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty beyond doubt?

Boy, you really have been under a rock haven't you?

I for one think _you_ deserve jail time desperately, since you posted an opinion.

Thats the spirit! Dubya wants YOU!

Or wait, that's not a crime is it?

Gee, and you were doing so well.

You say you've never seen a more deserving fellow. How about people that actually commit crimes? How about people who rape and kill and torture, who sell drugs to kids, who beat their wives and children up every weekend? Do you really think sil deserves jail time more than them? You are one sick puppy.

How about the ass who broke into my computer?

Noones gloryfying anyone here. You say you _have_ to read any evidence like you were a jury member. Tell me, did you? Were _you_ at the trial? Or where did you decide that you had never seen a more deserving person?

Why couldn't I view his page as an argument for his innocence? Or did he himself believe in his own guilt?

Isn't that exactly the point here? How _do_ you explain advanced technology to someone who doesn't know anything about anything?

Heres how I explain my innocence. I don't access systems without authorization. I don't preach circumvention of laws. When I protest or otherwise participate in civil disobedience, I do my jail time without being a snotnosed little whiner.

They won't understand, unless you have a very good lawyer that explains it all in simple terms. If you had bothered reading up on this case, you would have known that sil had a federal defender, since he lacked the dollars needed to get a _real_ lawyer.

Interestingly enough, I'm not in his shoes. If you put two and two together, you might figure out why.

You would also have known that he wrote that document to let people know his views, if not much more, about this case, and to inform the people that visit his site why he was going away

And he insulted all my 70 year old relatives. Hope he feels better.

Did he deserve jail time more than anyone else in the world? No, I don't think so. Bottom line.

And your opinion counts for squat.

He is a very skilled security professional. That's beyond any kind of doubt. I think you should use these two years to learn that convicting someone for something without having evidence is wrong.

If he's a very skilled security professional, why's he going to jail? I've got a better evaluation. He may have had uber-tech skills, but lacked the other half of the skills, how to guard your reputation when working in security. This is the most important skill of all, after all, when you think of it, if I can handle the reputation part of this job, I can let rainforestpuppy and others do the tech work. Now think about that part, you know, the sensitive, subjective, above all, difficult part of communicating security concerns to non-digital carbon based life forms. Oh yeah, thats right, you forgot about that big part of security work, didn't you?

[ Parent ]

Why didn't he fire his lawyer (4.50 / 4) (#32)
by acronos on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 12:48:06 AM EST

He seems like he is a very bright individual. In his story his lawyer committed huge stupidity. Even I know, and IANAL, that you can object and have it stricken from the record when someone brings up a past crime in court. Surely he knew his lawyer was not doing his job. His lawyer should have drilled the jury on technical stuff. HE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED A LAWYER WHO WAS IGNORANT OF TECHNICAL STUFF. That can't really be learned for a single case. Although I feel really sorry for the guy, there is too much that doesn't make sense to me. Mostly, why didn't he fire his lawyer? How is a lawyer going to make his case if he doesn't call any expert witnesses. If his friend was threatned, then find someone else and pay them. Better yet, find someone who can testify that his friend was threatened. Make it obvious he is being framed. Better to spend two years paying lawyer fees than two years in jail. Surely this bright guy knew that. I don't know the guy, and many of you do. You have to admit though, from the outside, if you didn't know him, it sure seems like things don't add up.

[ Parent ]
Lawyer (4.00 / 2) (#75)
by delmoi on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 05:37:38 PM EST

Well, according to the post by his wife, it was a public defender.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
Crimes of Moral Terpitude (4.00 / 1) (#98)
by yesterdays children on Sun Aug 12, 2001 at 01:27:39 PM EST

Can be brought up in subsequent trials, at least thats what I've been told.

[ Parent ]
Attorney and Client (3.62 / 8) (#30)
by quam on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 12:21:03 AM EST

Where is sil's outrage? Why should I care when it doesn't appear that he does? Do any of the facts readily available convey the idea that sil put up any sort of real fight at all?
....
Either he really is guilty, or (and god how I hate agreeing with trhurler), this is all a game to sil and he thinks it will be cool to boost his cred with martyrdom.

This reasoning attempts to provide an explanation of Sil's demeanor, however, the situation, with the establishment of an attorney-client relationship, was/is much more complicated. As Sil retained an attorney (the method unexplained), an attorney generally retains full control over the legal process. In effect, there is not much (if anything) sil could do. Much like a corporate manager is clueless of the intricacies of admining, bash or anything root and reliniquishes control to a sysadmin/someone who is an it expert, a client reliniquishes control of legal duties/expertise to his/her attorney; the attorney is the expert.

With first-hand experience working with clients in legal relationships, I can say it is vital for an attorney to retain full control because the client does not possess the training or knowledge of the legal system to fully understand the ramifications of a certain action or inaction in a legal proceeding or dispute. For instance, sil stated he wanted to yell, during trial, that an FBI agent was a liar. And, it was best for sil not to have made such an outburst because the judge would likely have disciplined sil in some manner.

It is an attorney's obligation to competently and vigorously represent his/her client's interests. The attorney should put up the real fight, not the client.

-- U.S. Patent 5443036 concerns a device for encouraging a cat to exercise by chasing a light spot.
[ Parent ]
Who is responsible? (4.80 / 5) (#39)
by sigwinch on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 04:08:30 AM EST

Much like a corporate manager is clueless of the intricacies of admining, bash or anything root and reliniquishes control to a sysadmin/someone who is an it expert, a client reliniquishes control of legal duties/expertise to his/her attorney; the attorney is the expert.
Unless you are a child or a helpless invalid, an expert assistant is a cost-effective expedient for achieving a goal, nothing more, nothing less. The expert is a means to an end, a tool for a job, and not a method for lifting the burden of responsibility off your shoulders. If you hire a lawyer, and use that as an excuse to turn off your brain, you have walked away from your responsibility to yourself. Only you know what you want, what risks you are willing to take, and whether your goals are being achieved.
With first-hand experience working with clients in legal relationships, I can say it is vital for an attorney to retain full control because the client does not possess the training or knowledge of the legal system to fully understand the ramifications of a certain action or inaction in a legal proceeding or dispute.
I mean no disrespect towards you, but this seems to me to be utter bombastic arrogant horseshit. It's the sort of treacherous evil that gets neighbors suing neighbors just because the law says they can, and by God the attorney knows the law. It's the prime reason that the American legal subculture is criticized for being overly litigous.
For instance, sil stated he wanted to yell, during trial, that an FBI agent was a liar.
The judge would probably forgive him, especially if he limited his interruption to a formal objection delivered in a calm tone of voice, and didn't make a habit of frivolous disruptions. As it was, he sat there quietly like a good little schoolboy and the jury believed the lies of the traitorous prosecutor.
And, it was best for sil not to have made such an outburst because the judge would likely have disciplined sil in some manner.
Yeah, the judge might have had him locked up in the federal pen and had him ass-fucked every day for the next two years. Oh, wait...
It is an attorney's obligation to competently and vigorously represent his/her client's interests.
This theory has three problems. First, not all experts are skillful. Quite a few are incompetent at their area of expertise, and a few are traitors working for the enemy. If Jesus's claims about witness tampering are correct, his attorney was clearly lacking in the basic competence department.

Second, even if the expert is skilled at the details, that skill confers no strategic ability. Just because the attorney can file the necessary briefs doesn't mean he can conceive and execute a complex plan. If Jesus's claims about having a single witness and no contingency plan are true, the attorney made a grave strategic mistake.

Finally, technical cases like this one require not just legal expertise, but domain expertise. When the prosecution's witnesses demonstrated a total lack of understanding about the supposed evidence that they were testifying about, Jesus's attorney should have drilled them into the fucking ground. However, he hadn't bothered to learn -- really learn in a way that he could explain to other people -- the relevant technical domain.

The attorney should put up the real fight, not the client.
So I'm just supposed to sit here with my hands folded in my lap while some shyster flushes my life down the drain? No thanks.

--
I don't want the world, I just want your half.
[ Parent ]

you fuck (1.31 / 29) (#31)
by Ender Ryan on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 12:29:30 AM EST

maybe you should give a shit because he's going to federal prison for SOMETHING HE DIDN'T FUCKING DO?? YOU FUCKING WORTHLESS MAGGOT!

Maybe I shouldn't post while I'm drunk... Or maybe people shouldn't go to jail for crimes they obviously didn't commit... I dunno... whatever... fuck you.


-
Exposing vast conspiracies! Experts at everything even outside our expertise! Liberators of the world from the oppression of the evil USian Empire!

We are Kuro5hin!


[ Parent ]

I hope this reply finds you sober (4.37 / 8) (#43)
by kumquat on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 05:32:55 AM EST

Or maybe people shouldn't go to jail for crimes they obviously didn't commit

No, they absolutely should not. Ever.

Unfortunately, they do. And they do so on a distressingly regular basis, all over the world. Some people are even executed for crimes they did not commit. This is horribly, unequivocally wrong, but it still happens.

My question, which neither you nor anybody else has yet answered, is why I should pay special attention to this case rather than other instances of justice gone awry. Because he is a hacker? Because he has a K5 account? Because he made a web page about his version of events? Because it concerns the internet?

Big fucking deal. You want to talk about abuse of governmental powers? Let's go talk to the people who were crippled and permanently maimed in Genoa by the GSF. Let's review the rampant genocide that has occurred in the last 10 years in Africa, Europe and SE Asia. Let's talk to all the people currently on death row in the US who have very compelling evidence of their innocence.

Yes, it sure does suck that yet another unlucky person will be doing time for a crime they did not commit. But why should I rally behind this guy? If you want a good poster boy for your anti-Carnivore crusade, then I would suggest that you keep looking.

[ Parent ]

you misunderstand (2.87 / 8) (#49)
by Ender Ryan on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 08:14:31 AM EST

The reason this causes so much excitement amongst the K5 crowd(myself obviously included) is because this guy is just like any other person here.

But it's also more than that. People are now getting imprisoned for crimes that any sane person wouldn't consider to be a crime, and people in their ignorance are OK with that because they don't understand the nature of these supposed crimes. People are being labeled as "hackers" for being security experts and people don't see anything wrong with that.

Yes, I am sober now. I was only mildly intoxicated. Reading my comments now that I'm sober, I still think they were perfectly justified, but had I been sober I probably would have censored them a bit more to keep my mojo up.
note: I was not intoxicated enough to not realize I would lose my trusted user status over those comments, sometimes you just have to let loose with some unfiltered vitriol...

With all that said, yes, there are plenty of injustices that are worse, and I get even angrier over such things. However, THIS discussion is not about those things, so your comments were completely offtopic, worthless, and completely beside the fucking point of this discussion.


-
Exposing vast conspiracies! Experts at everything even outside our expertise! Liberators of the world from the oppression of the evil USian Empire!

We are Kuro5hin!


[ Parent ]

We have different views of kuro5hin (3.75 / 4) (#65)
by kumquat on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 01:49:45 PM EST

your comments were completely offtopic, worthless, and completely beside the fucking point of this discussion

If the purpose of this submission was to have a whole bunch of people chime in with, "wow that sucks and I feel bad for sil and how he was wronged by the legal system", then I guess my commentary is off topic. What I saw, though, was an MLP in which the submitter briefly offered his opinion of the subject and supplied links where I could go read more and draw my own conclusions based on what was supplied. This is what I did.

this guy is just like any other person here

He is? That's too bad. I always thought that one of the best things for this place is for it to have a diverse audience. I guess I don't fit in then, because I am not a hacker and I have only a passing interest in Carnivore, internet security and other similar things.

I don't generally read about people just like me, because that is boring. I read what sil and others had to say because I was hoping there would be a good story here about how hackers are institutionally persecuted, supported by strong anecdotal evidence. What I found instead is a questionable character involved in questionable events being used by a bunch of people to preach to the choir and have a pity party.

I apologize for stepping into a situation where I was not wanted. I misinterpreted the nature of this site by assuming it was a place where people sought out varied opinion and discussion.

[ Parent ]

People react differently in different situations (4.50 / 8) (#37)
by keenan on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 02:50:46 AM EST

In your response, you explicitly state that there were only two possibilities that would explain his behaviour:

1) that he was guilty

2) that Sil thinks it's a game and he wants to be a martyr

I am awed that based on the evidence you could only come up with these two possibilities. I will state right out that I don't know Sil and that I can not possibly understand the workings of his mind, but here's another possibility :-

Sil believed he was innocent and as such, he never seriously considered the possibility that he would go to jail; he believed that he had evidence to back up his story and that this would make the case. If a person truly believes that they are innocent they will hold onto the naive belief that the court and the legal system will be on their side and will find them innocent, regardless of any obstacles. One goal of the judicial system is to get us to believe that only wrongdoers go to jail.

You state explicitly "maybe it's just me, but ... I'd be raising more hell" -- well, Sil is not you. Given similar situations, people tend to react differently. You cannot accurately judge someone else's behaviour on extrapolations you make of your own. Some people will be more aggressive, some more passive and some people's actions will simply be incomprehensible.

People need to cope any way they know how to. Watch The Shawshank Redemption sometime. Did Andy outwardly show outrage when he was put into prison for a crime that he did not commit?

You cannot judge someone's behaviour by their lifestyle, hobbies or "attitude toward everything". You do not really know this person. You do not know his background. All you can do based on limited information is make gross generalizations.

Keenan

[ Parent ]

No (3.33 / 3) (#41)
by kumquat on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 05:09:52 AM EST

Sil believed he was innocent and as such, he never seriously considered the possibility that he would go to jail; he believed that he had evidence to back up his story and that this would make the case.

Based on the areas of internet law and governmental idiocy that sil seemed to most concern himself with, I do not consider this a valid possibility at all. Quite the contrary, based on who he was and what he did with his time, you would think that he, of all people, would understand how precarious his situation was and act accordingly. It does not appear that he did so.

Re: Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemtion, I read the short story. It was good. I hope they made a decent movie out of it.

[ Parent ]

assumptions (5.00 / 3) (#62)
by botono9 on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 12:49:08 PM EST

...based on who he was and what he did with his time, you would think that he, of all people, would understand how precarious his situation was and act accordingly.
[emphasis mine]

Well, maybe you would think that. And maybe you are making rather large assumptions about this person. It is very comforting to think you can know all about a person based upon their hobbies, jobs, etc. isn't it?

Read _Science and Sanity_ by Alfred Korzybski sometime. Personthen and Personnow are not necessarily the same, and any assumptions about Personnow based upon attributes of Personthen are bound to run into some problems. Maybe you hold the views you are attributing to Sil, and maybe you know a few people who also hold those views. Fine, but that only means you've built a stereotype for yourself based upon extremely limited data. There are plenty of "hackers" who have no qualms about violating "privacy" or infringing on "rights" (meaning their moral compass points in a different direction). Who do you think built Carnivore?

"Guns are real. Blue uniforms are real. Cops are social fiction."
--Robert Anton Wilson
[ Parent ]

I would be silent if I were you (4.50 / 2) (#68)
by Steeltoe on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 02:26:08 PM EST

Who knows what we'll assume about you. It's really easy to extrapolate a personality out of your latest movements on K5. The picture would be as accurate as you have about Sil. (not that I know the guy). It's like chess: What move you play doesn't matter, it's the knowledge and certainty behind it that do.

- Steeltoe
Explore the Art of Living

[ Parent ]
Fact is: (3.00 / 4) (#82)
by Nf3 on Sat Aug 11, 2001 at 02:13:50 AM EST

Sil was just busted because the feds wanted somebody to bust.

He did not6hing wrong, but he was convicted by a totally clueless jury.

You may pontificate and posture all you want, but the sad fact is that those of us who are unix literate are automatically considered guilty of being too goddamned smart by octo generians who don't know how how to program their stupid vcr's.

[ Parent ]
werd (2.00 / 1) (#122)
by beenz on Fri Aug 17, 2001 at 09:40:59 AM EST

Werd. Happens all the time. Too bad most people still don't see it.

beenz

[ Parent ]
Are there any more links? (4.66 / 12) (#42)
by jesterzog on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 05:16:55 AM EST

Okay, as long as this really happened the way he says it does, I feel really sorry for him.

But does anyone know of any more objective and reputable news sources that can explain what went on here? From what I can tell, all this k5 posting does is to link to his big long speech saying "I didn't do it". We're up to comment 25 as I write this, and there's been only one comment questioning if it's actually genuine. Instead it's just one big outpouring.

Maybe it did happen exactly that way, but whenever I think about it, I can also easily see someone who was actually guilty writing up the same sort of thing. If he hates the feds for putting him in jail, it's hardly surprising he'd write them in as lying retards.

Honestly as long as this is genuine, it makes me feel quite mad. Sorry if I'm somehow offending people, but I don't know him in any way outside of this article and the related links. I'd like some more reliable information sources before spending too much of my time and effort on this guy's story.


jesterzog Fight the light


and thus, character (4.00 / 2) (#53)
by ellF on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 11:14:03 AM EST

jesterzog - that's where we begin to question sil's character. from what i know of the man, he is an honest, fairly reputable individual who has expressed a number of anti-imperalist, anti-exploitation sentiments via antioffline, and angered some people who apparently had the power to retaliate. i don't know sil all that well personally, although i've met him before, but i'd be highly suprised (although there are certainly stronger character judges here - especially people who ar friendly with him irl)if he had commited these crimes.

when you're doing this professionally, you just don't fuck around with measly system exploitation. i'm nearly positive that sil knew this - and it makes his incarceration all the more ridiculous.

[ Parent ]
agreed about objectivity (4.00 / 1) (#74)
by dboyles on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 05:12:54 PM EST

I won't make any judgements as to the validity of his story. Maybe everything he said is 100% true. But his diatribe against The Man just doesn't read well. For example, why mention that the expert witness has a newborn child? It has no bearing on the story. Knowing that he was being harassed at 3 in the morning is enough to prove the point.

Secondly, exactly what bearing does a drug conviction have on this case? Sure it doesn't do anything for his character, but he seems to devote a considerable amount of energy making excuses about the drug charge. So you screwed up and got caught. That's ok, happens to the best of us, but just state the facts and move on. We're smart enough to see that you're not some evil computer hacker just because you got into some (non-computer related) trouble when you were younger.

Thirdly, the defense attourney sounds like he needs to brush up on his law books. Either that or it's not as cut-and-dried as sil makes it out to be. As others have mentioned, why not get a subpoena to have the expert witness testify? Why not object when the DA makes false claims for which he has no proof (e.g. the claim of sil breaking into gov't machines). Why not reinforce that there is technical evidence that proves your innocense?

Believe me, I know how law enforcement agencies like to work. I realize that they'll stoop to some pretty low tactics to try to get that conviction. But you still have some rights. And please, if you're going to try to make a point, make an attempt at objectivity - it'll make the story much more believable.

--
"Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
[ Parent ]
Second hand information is worthless. (3.00 / 2) (#120)
by slaida1 on Fri Aug 17, 2001 at 09:14:33 AM EST

No matter how much "facts" you'd find about this case, you'd still be utterly incapable to judge Sil's honesty. Only people who really know are those who did something. The one who cracked in that computer, the one who didn't (Sil, maybe), the ones who (maybe) lied (feds) and the ones who made the verdict (jury).

Doesn't it feel odd thinking that we here know probably about as much as the jury when they made their verdict? Or the jury knew even less; remember, they we're people who think that box-part of a computer (the CPU) is called "the harddisc".

It's dangerous to forget that unless you were there doing it, you never ever know enough facts to judge other people. No matter how papers write or how news tell or how other people think. That is why every court decision must be based on suspect's own confession .

THE most single valuable lesson I have ever learned is: I don't know. I hope everybody could learn that same bit.



[ Parent ]

He is a drug dealer (1.32 / 25) (#44)
by dkr on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 05:56:44 AM EST

Someone mentioned his 'minor drug offense'. And others seem to agree with this criminal that because he was 20 the crime was somehow meaningless.

Hello!? He was convicted for selling drugs!
Children die every day due to criminals like this guy.

I find it hard to believe so many of you support this guy on so little evidence.



IDIOT! (4.25 / 4) (#45)
by Blarney on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 06:11:27 AM EST

Nobody is claiming that he DIDN'T sell drugs. What the fuck a previous drug conviction might have to do with a current undeserved jail sentence beats me. Maybe you can explain.



[ Parent ]

If I understand you then.. (4.83 / 6) (#46)
by ajduk on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 07:09:37 AM EST

Anyone who has ever been convicted of a crime is automatically guilty of any further crime of which they are accused.

Wow. This could save lots of time in court:

Judge: What evidence do you have that this man commited the murder 1000 miles away whilst at work in an open plan office with security cameras?

Prosecuter: He got a speeding ticket 20 years ago.

Judge: WHAT!!! Where's the petrol can and matches? I want to see this B**ard burn RIGHT NOW!!

[ Parent ]
'bastard' (2.50 / 2) (#73)
by delmoi on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 05:10:20 PM EST

Why did you censor out the word 'bastard'?
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
maybe because... (2.00 / 2) (#91)
by Medieval Gnome on Sat Aug 11, 2001 at 05:27:20 PM EST

Why did you censor out the word 'bastard'?

Maybe because he doesn't like to use profanity?

[ Parent ]
Eh? (1.00 / 1) (#94)
by CrayDrygu on Sun Aug 12, 2001 at 05:25:09 AM EST

"Bastard" is profanity? When did that happen?

[ Parent ]
Begging for an ass-kicking? (3.33 / 6) (#47)
by Farq Q. Fenderson on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 07:46:25 AM EST

There's probably more drug-dealers on Kuro5hin than you think.

Drug-dealers are not inherently bad people and not all of them sell crack to school kids.

Furthermore, drug stores sell drugs, as do liquor stores.

Just because it's against the law doesn't mean it's illegal.

farq will not be coming back
[ Parent ]
Say What? (3.66 / 3) (#48)
by retinaburn on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 08:01:00 AM EST

Just because it's against the law doesn't mean it's illegal.

Perhaps you and I differ in the definition of ILLEGAL ..me I prefer Webster's definiton "1. Prohibited by law.".

Perhaps you should spend some time reading a book, than selling crack to school kids.

I think that we are a young species that often fucks with things we don't know how to unfuck. -- Tycho


[ Parent ]
Oops (4.00 / 4) (#50)
by Farq Q. Fenderson on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 08:25:12 AM EST

I meant to say:

just because it's against the law doesn't mean it's wrong

Thanks for pointing that out.

farq will not be coming back
[ Parent ]
Ladies and Gentlemen. (4.20 / 5) (#64)
by KoanMastah on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 01:40:49 PM EST

This is your brain on drugs. ;)


---
And if you quote the jargon file at me I'll come right through this monitor upside your head.

[ Parent ]
drug dealing (3.66 / 3) (#63)
by roju on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 01:12:15 PM EST

It also begs the question: When do you go from selling drugs to dealing drugs? Suppose you bought a quater ounce of weed for yourself, and sold half of it to your buddy. I believe that technically (legally) you'd be dealing, but you sure aren't a dealer.

[ Parent ]
troll (3.00 / 3) (#61)
by botono9 on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 12:34:18 PM EST

troll.

"Guns are real. Blue uniforms are real. Cops are social fiction."
--Robert Anton Wilson
[ Parent ]

troll (3.00 / 4) (#93)
by dkr on Sun Aug 12, 2001 at 12:02:09 AM EST

Yes, it was a troll. But I don't see a troll as a necessarily bad thing. Playing devil's advocate and making a statement contrary to the majority is a good way of furthering the discussion by making people defend their assumptions. The primary assumption being that this guy was telling the truth when it is well known that many convicted criminals all claim they "didn't do it".

This reminds me of the time I saw someone steal an item on a MUD by physically going to another player's box when he was AFK and issuing a command to give his character the item. When the person noticed the item missing and made an accusation on the MUD, dozens of people stood up for the thief. Saying things like, 'I've known her online for 6 months, there is no way she did it'. Most of those people didn't even know he was a male playing a female character, and yet anyone who had ever played online with him unanimously agreed that he would not do such a thing.

It seems to me that most people want to believe that people are good regardless of evidence. It is almost as if we are living in an anti-Victorian age now.

[ Parent ]

That's how it is supposed to work. (5.00 / 3) (#95)
by theboz on Sun Aug 12, 2001 at 09:40:52 AM EST

It seems to me that most people want to believe that people are good regardless of evidence.

The founding principles of the U.S. Justice system is that you are innocent until proven guilty. While sil has already been convicted by the courts, that doesn't necesarily mean that he is guilty. In this case, the accusations that the trial was not fair due to various reasons should lead us to believe that at the very least he should be given an appeal.

As far as the character of sil, he's not stupid. I don't mean just that he's intelligent, but also with common sense. I would think that he would have known something like this would have happened if he would have cracked the computers of his former employer. What I can guess happened is that either one of their current employees at the time messed up and tried to make it look like someone cracked them so he wouldn't get in trouble, or that an outside cracker got in (less likely) and did stuff and the company needed to blame someone. If you are a sysadmin and leave a company, they get very paranoid about you. Often they will take away your access to the systems the day you put in your notice. How can someone they trust with root access suddenly become a dangerous outsider?

So even though I don't have all the information, I have to assume sil is innocent. This is not based completely on what he said, but mostly that unless I have see proof that he did it, I can't say he is guilty. I don't think anyone else should either, but that is my opinion.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Ok (4.50 / 4) (#67)
by strlen on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 02:15:12 PM EST

You make me think like may be YOU have bought something from him. First of all not a single kid has died from marijuana. Crack and cocaine killed considerably less than did alcohol and cigarettes. Now I myself do not know what the details were, but saying that he killed kids is retarded. And I think the drug offense WAS a conviction and it had nothing to do with his current situation.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
Narc... (1.00 / 3) (#70)
by clevershark on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 03:03:28 PM EST

'nuff said



[ Parent ]
OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD ... (3.00 / 4) (#79)
by Nf3 on Sat Aug 11, 2001 at 01:33:48 AM EST

How many people do you know who didn't "deal drugs" in their late teens / early 20's? Geeze oh pete!

I don't know anyone who didn't! And I'm now in my 50's, retired from one very productive career, and building towards another.

Lets cut Sil some slack. His only crimes were: 1.) his naivete in believing that there was anything resembling true justice in our Amerikan criminal justice system, and 2.) being smarter than your average recta fosal (learn a little Latin) juror.

[ Parent ]
hack the planet !! (1.83 / 6) (#54)
by flummox on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 11:19:25 AM EST

hey? what's wrong with being a "drug" dealer? many people all over this planet are "drug" dealers. including your doctor and pharmacist...

i think this is shitty. i hate government (bring it, biotch!)... i hate the fact that i have to "believe" in what others want, regardless of my personal opinion about it (read: carnivore, christianity, the drug war...) it's insane...

who has the balls to grab a musket and fight for our freedom?? oh, how i wish there was a CHOICE of places to go for people who don't wish to be ruled by a stupid government.

i hate people,

cap'n flummox


...bring me my cheese...

What planet do you live on? (2.66 / 3) (#56)
by AmberEyes on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 11:27:48 AM EST

Heh, you are being "forced" to believe Christianity? "Forced" to believe that Carnivore is a good thing? Being "forced" to believe that the drug war is for the good of the people? Who's forcing you? Are you typing that with an FBI agent pointing an MP5 at your head?

I don't believe in Christianity. I don't believe that Carnivore is neccessarily a good thing. And I certainly don't believe everything they tell me about the drug war.

I'm curious as to where you live. However, I'm thinking this is just an overreaction. Maybe you're pissed off because other people just aren't seeing things your way?

Food for thought - cheers!

-AmberEyes


"But you [AmberEyes] have never admitted defeat your entire life, so why should you start now. It seems the only perfect human being since Jesus Christ himself is in our presence." -my Uncle Dean
[ Parent ]
The Planet of the Apes, of course. (1.87 / 8) (#58)
by kelkemesh on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 11:36:15 AM EST

"Forced" to believe that Carnivore is a good thing? Being "forced" to believe that the drug war is for the good of the people?

We're not forced to think one thing or the other, but we are forced to act as if we thought Carnivore and the War on Some Drugs were good: by footing the bill.

[ Parent ]

Oh, I'm not questioning that (2.66 / 3) (#60)
by AmberEyes on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 11:51:36 AM EST

Of course we're forced to act like it. But we're not forced to think one thing or another.

As cliche as it's become, if enough people complain about that, something might get done. Maybe we'd have an opt-in payment system. I don't know.

But the bottom line (and not to stray) is that no one is forcing you to believe in anything. Don't like it, do something about it. Don't want to do something or go far enough? Too bad - then that's your fault, not someone else's. The only one who can "force" you to believe something is yourself.

-AmberEyes


"But you [AmberEyes] have never admitted defeat your entire life, so why should you start now. It seems the only perfect human being since Jesus Christ himself is in our presence." -my Uncle Dean
[ Parent ]
i live on planet earth... (1.66 / 3) (#109)
by flummox on Mon Aug 13, 2001 at 04:04:59 PM EST

what i meant by "forced" is the fact that if i say "i don't believe in god/christianity" most people will think i'm evil/bad/wrong... i think you just took me too literally.

i liked you snipet from the website. interesting. but, you don't have to jump down my throat because i mis/used the word "force".

no, anus, no one is "forcing" me, or holding a [insert gun type here to make me look cool] to my head. i meant that people, people "in power", will "hold it against you" if you don't "conform to their ways". i can bet you anything that if i came up to my boss and told her that i don't believe in "god" that i would be removed from my place of employment. or, maybe that's not the case. but, even worse is the fact that i think that way and also "fear" expressing my deepest emotions about religion in a country that is supposedly "free"...

so, you have some good points. just be a little nicer with them. don't jump down my throat because i mis/used a word or because i may not agree with something you are thinking...

for the most part, i think we "agree". it's just that our words aren't agreeing with each other...

later,

cap'n flummox


...bring me my cheese...

[ Parent ]
the futility of resistance, and its necessity (4.60 / 5) (#57)
by ellF on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 11:35:06 AM EST

who has the balls to grab a musket and fight for our freedom??

you should read my rant on my homepage about this. to cut and paste a bit...

<snip>

well, at the risk of sounding extremist, let me tell you a bit about what i'm learning about our government. we are under the rule not of an elected leader but of the military-industrial complex in this country. we are under the rule not of the United States but of a small group of wealthy people who want one thing: absolute power. we are under the heels of the same individuals who saw john kennedy, malcom x, and martin luther king coming together in the late sixties and felt threatened by it, and killed them. we live under a regime that was put into power against the will of the majority of this country, and still managed, via their extraordinary propoganda vehicles, to convince most americans to not get outraged, indeed, to even look at those of us who dare display outrage as either dirty radicals or ridiculous extremists. i get sick to my stomach thinking about how REAL all of this is sometimes. by the knowledge that there is nothing we can do, at this point - it's not "us against them", because we don't know who "they" are.

welcome to your world. there's nothing you can do except bend over.

if you fight, you'll spend your life fighting to wrench even the smallest bit of dignity back - and it'll probably be taken back from you. if you organize and pose a threat, your group will be infiltrated and divided, and you'll catch a bullet or end up in jail.


</snip>

we've been screwed, methinks, since the first person raised the first fence and said, "this is mine - and if you work for me, i'll give you a little bit, but this is mine.", and we didn't tear down that fence, saying, "no way - that isn't how this is going to work." at this point, we can't even see where the fences are - and so what are we left with? we can resist if it makes us feel better - i certainly understand that - or we can retreat into ourselves. barring some cataclysmic event that severly weakend the infrastructure of this nation (nay, of most of the world), we aren't going to see change, at least not in any sort of powerful way.



[ Parent ]
Inconsistencies (4.30 / 10) (#55)
by Merk00 on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 11:27:47 AM EST

I've noticed a few things that strike out as particularly odd in this story. First of all, I find it extremely unlikely that an arresting federal office would ever comment "we know you didn't do this." Even assuming they knew that they didn't do it, why would they open their mouth and say it? Why not keep their mouth shut? That event seems very unlikely to have occured in my opinion.

Second, as per the district attorney putting pressure on him to not testify, that is obstruction of justice and witness tampering. Why was this not brought up in open court? Subpoena the expert witness to testify that effect. At worst that'd be grounds for a retrial if not throwing out the case altogether. Any competent attorney should be able to figure this out.

The level of stupidity of the attorney is also striking to me. Besides missing the above, he also appears to have only planned to call one witness. Why was it not pointed out that it was technically impossible for these actions to occur? Why not put the federal officer on the stand and ask him if he said "we know you didn't do it."

There's a lot about this case that makes me extremely skeptical. If the federal district court for Southern New York had judicial decisions online for free I'd take a look at it but until then I don't believe this was a particularly trustworthy source.

------
"At FIRST we see a world where science and technology are celebrated, where kids think science is cool and dream of becoming science and technology heroes."
- FIRST Mission

The level of stupidity... (4.00 / 2) (#81)
by Nf3 on Sat Aug 11, 2001 at 01:59:32 AM EST

... is something well worth notinig.

as is the fact that Sil is just an ordinary good guy. His only fault lies in the fact that he is "smart".

He was wrongly convicted by incredibly stupid, NORMAL people because they were unable to relate to or understand the basic facts of the case. we in Amerika live in the land of the stupid. And, like our brother Sil, if we're ever accused of being overly intelligent, we may as well plan on sharing a cell and a shower with bubba.

If you know how to hack, you're guilty of being too God Damned intellegent for your own good.

[ Parent ]
Innocent? (3.50 / 2) (#90)
by Merk00 on Sat Aug 11, 2001 at 03:20:20 PM EST

That of course implies that he is innocent. After all, we only have his word to go by. I'm very skeptical of the whole thing and am liable to believe that he left out a number of details to make his case sound stronger. The story is way too one sided to take at face value.

------
"At FIRST we see a world where science and technology are celebrated, where kids think science is cool and dream of becoming science and technology heroes."
- FIRST Mission
[ Parent ]

My personal experience (4.33 / 3) (#84)
by Signal 11 on Sat Aug 11, 2001 at 11:47:34 AM EST

First of all, I find it extremely unlikely that an arresting federal office would ever comment "we know you didn't do this."

A BATF agent came to my house one day (long story) for a crime that I also could not have committed. And they knew it. And they said so - but they had to ask the questions anyway and go through the motions. The arresting officer has no say at all in things - he files a report, and he's done... he may legitimately believe that the person arrested is innocent... or maybe he's playing mind games, but the point is they really do say that. My case, thankfully, turned out better... despite my own reputation as a "hacker" at the time - I was 19. Fortunately, the crime in question was not computer-related, or I might have been subjected to a non-comprending jury that, at the time, I would not have been able to communicate with in layman's terms - it took several years of technical support, but I could now.

Bottom line: They're free to voice their own opinions, within certain boundaries. Saying someone's innocent (or not) falls inside those. :^) Trust me on one thing - if there's anything a cop knows, it's the rules wrt questioning witnesses and defendants.


--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
[ Parent ]

Spoke with a Detective... (4.66 / 3) (#108)
by VivianC on Mon Aug 13, 2001 at 03:16:34 PM EST

I've noticed a few things that strike out as particularly odd in this story. First of all, I find it extremely unlikely that an arresting federal office would ever comment "we know you didn't do this." Even assuming they knew that they didn't do it, why would they open their mouth and say it? Why not keep their mouth shut? That event seems very unlikely to have occured in my opinion.

I told this to my Dad and he laughed. He couldn't count how many times he said "we know you didn't do it but could you answer some questions?" Sometimes it was true, a lot of times, they knew they had the right guy. A ride to the station, coffee and a smoke. "Now tell us what you saw again." Smart people shut up, lawyer up or never come in in the first place. Dummies start telling the great lies they thought up on the way down. Then they get tripped up by facts and get busted.

My Mother always told my Father that if crimminals ever got smart, he would have to really work for a living.

Best advice: Never talk without a lawyer.

Viv

[ Parent ]
If this ever happens to you... (4.80 / 10) (#66)
by shakah on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 02:12:39 PM EST

...(assuming you're in the US) don't "talk to them for 3 hours" -- only talk to law enforcement / government people on the advice of (and in the presence of) a lawyer.

There is absolutely no good that can come from doing otherwise.

Remember, they are skilled in the art of questioning and will likely be playing subtle (and not-so-subtle) psychological gambits for THEIR benefit, not yours. Similarly, if someone knocks on your door and want to speak with you or asks you "to go downtown and answer some questions", a simple "no thank you" works wonders.

They can lie (4.85 / 7) (#72)
by rpbird on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 04:40:28 PM EST

The police and prosecutors can lie to just about anyone involved in a case. During a suspect interview, they can freely say that night is day, up is down, or that the Lindberg Baby is alive and well and seventy years old and living in Butte, Montana. There are only four things they can't do: they can't use physical force (aka torture), they can't interview to a suspect before delivering a Miranda warning ("You have the right to remain silent..."), they can't deny legal representation once a suspect asks for it, and they can't lie on the witness stand in a trial. Anything else is carte blanche. Of course, they sometimes do these things anyway, but if they're caught at it, the suspect gets a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. Cops and prosecutors have their own agendas, which often do not match with the pursuit of justice. Now, knowing all these things, like the man said:
DON'T TALK TO COPS/PROSECUTORS WITHOUT A LAWYER, BETTER YET, DON'T TALK TO THEM AT ALL, WHETHER YOU ARE INNOCENT OR NOT! It's your ass, you want to go to jail?

[ Parent ]
AND LAWYERS ... (4.00 / 2) (#78)
by Nf3 on Sat Aug 11, 2001 at 01:22:22 AM EST

... will as often lie as not. Just because some corn dog leagle beagle says he's on your side, that doesn't mean he is. They all consider themselves "offocers of the court" and will by instinct suck up to the status quo, as opposed to considering the nuances of "new" tech.


[ Parent ]
Knowing first hand what went down... (4.67 / 31) (#71)
by SGrl on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 03:29:48 PM EST

Well, for those of you who don't know who I am, I am sil's wife.

Everything sil has said is true. I was there. I have eyes, ears, and a brain.

Anyway...to the guy who said he doesn't think it went down the way sil stated: It did. It's all true. You don't have to believe me, and I can't say I care if you do, but it's sad that you'd be so blindfolded as to the ways things go down in the US.

To the guy who said he was a drugdealer: He didn't SELL drugs. He pointed a drugdealer out when someone asked him for drugs, so he would be left alone to mind his own business. It was years ago too. He was in the wrong place, at the wrong time. So sue him.

As far as him 'having no regrets' goes: He has no regrets for fighting, eventhough he lost. If he had been guilty, he would have taken the 3 to 6 months they offered him. He didn't take it, and eventhough the ISP testified that he wasn't even online, he lost. Why? Because the govt chose to tire the jury with a lot of stuff that didn't have anything to do with the crimes that had taken place. The jury just wanted to go home, and some of them slept through parts of the trial. With a good lawyer who would have pointed the obvious out the way he was supposed to, it would most likely have gone differently, but we couldn't afford one, so sil was stuck with a federal defender. It's not that easy to come up with 20 grand upfront when you've spent all your savings on moving to a different country just months earlier.

As for this comment:
"So when you put together his hobbies, lifestyle, and apparent attitude towards everything that happened, you can really only draw one of two logical conclusions. Either he really is guilty, or (and god how I hate agreeing with trhurler), this is all a game to sil and he thinks it will be cool to boost his cred with martyrdom."

sil doesn't give a shit about boosting anything. And you obviously have no clue about his hobbies, lifestyle or attitude....it makes me sick to see people say things like this, when they so obviously doesn't know the person they're making statements about. I think I know sil pretty well, he's not only been my husband for a year and a half, he's also been my best friend for quite some time. He isn't the type that would do a thing like this.

It's a fscked up world we live in, and the sad part is that some people just don't give a shit about wether someone is guilty or not, as long as they get their convictions. The more convictions, the higher the budget gets. Sil posted a paper on how to circumvent carnivore, and 6 days later, we had the house crawling with feds. The DA told the jury not to worry about the fact that sil didn't have any reason at all to do this crime. You'd at least expect them to go after someone who DID have reasons.

I could post everything from the trial, but that'd probably piss them off, and they'd most likely make life hell in jail for him, so I won't. He could have made a big deal about the lies in court, but then they'd most likely have tried to give him as long a sentence as possible. He could have gotten as much as 10 years, and 500 000 dollars in fines. We knew this, and the lawyer said to stay calm about things...we trusted him.

He's innocent, I know he is since I had moved there just a few weeks before the crime supposedly took place, he was between jobs that week, and he was in a good mood, because we got to spend 24/7 together, which we did. I sat right next to him whenever he was online, and he sat right next to me whenever I was. I didn't see ANYTHING illegal taking place. I wasn't allowed to testify though, since I am his wife and therefore not 'credible' enough. It's sick if you ask me.

He knows unix...whomever did this didn't even know how to use 'wall' or 'ifconfig', but had to 'man wall' and 'man ifconfig' on that server. His IP was nowhere to be found. Why? He wasn't online...the ISP even testified he wasn't. But go home and try to explain ISP and online/not online to your grannie, while drowning her in thousands of pages of other bullshit. She won't get it, and neither did the jury.

As I said, I really don't care what anyone thinks. All I care about is that I KNOW he didn't do this. The feds tried to make him think I set him up by tipping them off. He knows I'd never do that, he hadn't done shit. They also tried their best to make me think he had done it. I know he didn't do it, and I'm VERY happy I know so. This is a period of time we're not able to see eachother much, but he'll get out in a while, and we'll always be there for eachother. That's something they didn't manage to mess up.
That's all we care about at this point.

I'm sure someone'll post more shit about how he must have done this, how it all seems so unlikely that they'd say the thigs they said, that they lied etc. So go ahead, post that if you want to. I know the facts, a few others who has seen the files from the trial also knows the facts. Noone who knows anything about tech stuff and who's seen the transcripts thinks he's even remotely guilty. That's a fact. Believe what you want, you might not be one of the people who have seen the stuff, and all you'll have is your own speculations. I can't post it all here as I've said, so don't even bother asking me. Speculate all you want, buy whatever the feds say, it's up to you. Just don't tell me that they wouldn't do something like this to someone who's innocent. You should know better, and if you don't, get thicker glasses to look at the world around you with.

Post More Info (4.40 / 5) (#80)
by technomancerX on Sat Aug 11, 2001 at 01:37:05 AM EST

Court proceedings are a matter of public record. At least post the court and case information (what court, what case number) so anyone else who's determined can look the information up and confirm your story. The problem you've got is you provide 0 proof to backup your claims.

My condolances if things went down the way you say.

Also, it REALLY sounds like an appeal is in order.

[ Parent ]

well (4.00 / 7) (#88)
by SGrl on Sat Aug 11, 2001 at 12:24:34 PM EST

No...the problem I have is that my husband is in jail for something he didn't do. I don't care if people thinks he did it or not, all I care about is not screwing things up for him in case of an appeal etc. I want him out of there ASAP.

I know I could post the case ID, but you have to understand something here. Privacy means a hell of a lot to me, for very good reasons. I don't want to post anything at this point that would make it easy for just about anyone to get personal info on me or sil. I wanna make sure that I stay safe while he is away. If you have questions about this, feel free to get on efnet on IRC, join #antioffline, and I'll explain why if I'm not idle, or one of my friends will. I won't post more on here though.

[ Parent ]
what are you after? (4.33 / 3) (#99)
by no carrier on Sun Aug 12, 2001 at 01:58:00 PM EST

I'm not sure I understand why you are telling this story. Are you here to get people to feel sorry for you? You say your not. Are you here to get help for your husband? You sure aren't being cooperative with people. Are you just trying to relate how fucked up a world we live in?

There has to be a reason this story was posted in the first place. If you want help, post more info, get the truth out to as many as possible. Take a look at www.lisl.com and see what Hunter Thompson has done to bring attention to that. Intelligent people aren't going to read something posted on the internet and take it for the gospel, you and your husband should understand that. If it's the truth, noone can change it, not gov't bullies, not lawyers, not time and not posting on the internet. If your not making this up, proove it to us, if your telling the truth you WILL get help here and elsewhere. I understand your need for privacy, but do you want to privatly sit at home while your husband sits not-quite-so-privately in jail? I don't see how the good of becoming known is outweighted by keeping your privacy.

So, you obviously don't want our help, is it our sympathy then? forget it, again, no truth, no care on my part. all ya gotta do is type kaycee & cancer into a search engine to see a good example of why not to give a shit. you've got a good story, but without any facts that's all it is to me.

Look, i've been in jail, I've been in front of a judge that laughed at me when my case was stated. You dont' have to tell me we live in a fucked up world. I live here too and I see this shit everyday. So if that's all you wanted, then ok, welcome to the club. Now sit down and shut up, nobody cares. Life is hard, wear a helmet.

And as far as what info has been given so far, I still don't know what to believe. The only real proof you offer that says Sil didn't do it is that he wansn't online with his ISP at the time the crime was committed. Well, let me tell ya a little something, for someone who supposedly works in computer security, that's a little weak. I've got at least 4 accounts with different ISP's, I know I could use at least 10 others, I could get a laptop and a free aol disk, I could go to a friends house, I could root some damn windows box and start an attack from there. Hell, all you've proved is that Sil is smart enough not to break into a system from his home computer. Sure, I agree that the gov't doesn't seem to have much of a case, but all I have to go on is your word. Maybe they have a different story.



----

I stab people.
[ Parent ]
for the last time.. (3.75 / 4) (#100)
by SGrl on Sun Aug 12, 2001 at 05:35:33 PM EST

I'm not sure I understand why you are telling this story. Are you here to get people to feel sorry for you? You say your not. Are you here to get help for your husband? You sure aren't being cooperative with people. Are you just trying to relate how fucked up a world we live in?

I was trying to straighten out a few questionmarks that some seemed to have after reading the final post sil made before going in. I wanted to set people straight about what he meant, why he posted it, since I think it's better to get some facts out rather than people making assumptions when they have no clue about these things. I can't say much as I have already said. I have been adviced by Jennifer Granick (a very good tech lawyer if you don't know who she is) as well as others, not to say much at all about the case, since everything said can make it quite a bit harder to get justice. I don't like being felt sorry for, so no, that's not it. I'm not here to get help for sil, only lawyers and people inolved can help anyway. I'm very cooperative I think..I've told everyone where they can go if they have more questions. I don't think that's being un-cooperative. I didn't have to say anything at all, I did that to help people get an idea about what really happened, since it had been posted here on k5 and people had started making comments based on nothing but what they had seen here, drawing conclusions that were kind of weird in my eyes. As I said, I had no idea anyone was gonna post anything about the case here. All I knew was that sil made a final post on the site, to give people a hint about why he wasn't gonna be around for a while. I also knew Thomas Greene at TheRegister had interviewed him about it. So no, I didn't have any reasons to post the story here, since I didn't even know it was being posted. I seriously see no good reason for me to post more about this though. There are way better reasons NOT to do so, and I have stated those.

There has to be a reason this story was posted in the first place. If you want help, post more info, get the truth out to as many as possible. Take a look at www.lisl.com and see what Hunter Thompson has done to bring attention to that. Intelligent people aren't going to read something posted on the internet and take it for the gospel, you and your husband should understand that. If it's the truth, noone can change it, not gov't bullies, not lawyers, not time and not posting on the internet. If your not making this up, proove it to us, if your telling the truth you WILL get help here and elsewhere. I understand your need for privacy, but do you want to privatly sit at home while your husband sits not-quite-so-privately in jail? I don't see how the good of becoming known is outweighted by keeping your privacy.

Again, I didn't even know this was being posted on kuro5hin till I was told about it a day after it was already done. I understand very well that most people with half a brain would wanna see the files themselves before deciding what to believe. I just can't post it. I have already told you why. You don't know me, you don't know why I value privacy so highly. I CAN'T tell you why on here. You don't have to believe me, but I do have very good reasons. People who know me know the reasons, and I just won't tell people I don't know and trust.

So, you obviously don't want our help, is it our sympathy then? forget it, again, no truth, no care on my part. all ya gotta do is type kaycee & cancer into a search engine to see a good example of why not to give a shit. you've got a good story, but without any facts that's all it is to me.

Again, I don't want anything from you. I want justice. You're not a lawyer, or a judge, so I don't think you can help me in any way even if you wanted to. All I wanted to do was rely as much info as I could when I saw that some people here misunderstood some things, without going further than I have been adviced to as far as saying anything about the case goes.

Look, i've been in jail, I've been in front of a judge that laughed at me when my case was stated. You dont' have to tell me we live in a fucked up world. I live here too and I see this shit everyday. So if that's all you wanted, then ok, welcome to the club. Now sit down and shut up, nobody cares. Life is hard, wear a helmet.

I'm sorry you've been in a messed up situation. Then you should know by own experience that it's not easy. You say nobody cares....you have no idea. I get hundreds of emails every day regarding this from people that DOES care. But that's beside the point. As I have said over and over, I don't want shit but justice, and that's something noone on here can give me even if some might want to.



And as far as what info has been given so far, I still don't know what to believe. The only real proof you offer that says Sil didn't do it is that he wansn't online with his ISP at the time the crime was committed. Well, let me tell ya a little something, for someone who supposedly works in computer security, that's a little weak. I've got at least 4 accounts with different ISP's, I know I could use at least 10 others, I could get a laptop and a free aol disk, I could go to a friends house, I could root some damn windows box and start an attack from there. Hell, all you've proved is that Sil is smart enough not to break into a system from his home computer. Sure, I agree that the gov't doesn't seem to have much of a case, but all I have to go on is your word. Maybe they have a different story.


Maybe you should read my posts again, if that's all you've seen me say? Well, I really don't bother too much about what people I don't know think. Maybe I shouldn't have posted anything on this board and just let everyone draw their own conclusions based on nothing but what was posted in the story on here. I just felt I should say something about it, without saying more than I had been adviced to say at all about the case. My bad. I should just have sat quietly and let people say things and draw conclusions about sil that were so far from the truth about what kind of person he is, and what he has and hasn't done. I don't know, but I doubt too many people would just sit quiet when un-true things were being said about their loved ones. I know I couldn't just sit here and watch without saying anything.

I don't expect you to believe anything I have said, and as I've said before, I really don't care all that much about what you think. You don't know what happened, and you have the right to form an opinion based on what you know. I can only say what I have seen, and what I know about this. I can't say much, and I DO wish I could, but it's not gonna happen for a while. I understand if you think I wanted something if you thought I was involved in posting this story on kuro5hin in the first place. As I have said though, I didn't even find out till the day after it had been posted. I don't want anything but justice, and this isn't court, so I can't even try to get that here. Most people on here have understood what I've said though, and maybe this post will clearify it for you too...I don't know. All I know is that I'm not even gonna try to tell you the reasons for why I say/don't say things, not again. This is it. I have too many things to do that are more important than trying to tell people my views when they don't feel like listening to what I have to say.

[ Parent ]
whatever..... (1.00 / 3) (#103)
by no carrier on Mon Aug 13, 2001 at 10:16:29 AM EST

I don't expect you to believe anything I have said, and as I've said before, I really don't care all that much about what you think.

good. you don't care what i think and i don't care what you think. we agree that the story should not have wasted space here if your not willing or able to give more details so that more people can actually get involved. now we are left with why you are spending your time and effort responding to posts here. if you can't give us more info and you don't want our pity or help then you should be doing something more constructive with your time. I trully hope Sil didn't do this and that he is proven innocent. However, this is the last time I will think about it and I will not read any more posts to this story unless I find that there has been more info released. As I said before, I've got my own life to take care of, I'm not going to worry with anyone else's if I can't do anything positive for them. and I care not for IRC, for it is a nasty place and it smells funny.

I wish you good luck and want you to understand that I don't have any bad feeling about you personally, I just believe there is no purpose to posting this story here as it is.

May misfortune follow you the rest of your life, but never catch up.


------

I stab people.
[ Parent ]
grab stick. pull from ass. (4.00 / 4) (#110)
by ellF on Mon Aug 13, 2001 at 04:49:18 PM EST

no carrier:

one of the particular delights, as you so obviously have noticed, of dealing with people online is that you can be as crass as you see fit without any tangible effect on you or your life. what you have apparently failed to wrap your head around is the fact that k5 is a community of people - and as such, the members within show at least modicum of respect for each other. regardless of your views - or your caring - about sil's situation, it is blatently offensive to not at least demonstrate some sympathy towards his wife, who is now forced to be apart from her husband for two years for a crime that she does not believe he committed.

if, as you say, you have your own life to lead, and if it is even is comprised of even a fraction of the importance that you insinuate it has in your posts, then don't waste either your or our time posting on k5. if you *do* post, show that you have risen above the attack mentality so prevelant in the online world, and ponder twice before hitting "post", taking into account how the words you have written will be received by someone, especially if that person is being entirely reasonable (as sil's wife is).

all she "did" was not provide the information you seemed to deem she wanted - back off.

SGrl:

i believe that i've met sil (briefly), and i've certainly followed his work in the past. i don't think you were at all incorrect in posting to this story, and i *hope* i speak for most of k5 - for the infamous cabal, at least - when i say that we have the utmost sympathy for you, and a good deal of outrage over what happened to sil. you've made it clear that we can't really help yet, and (again speaking for perhaps more people than i should), we are trying to understand that. just know that if something should come up that would allow us to be of use - if sil wants for books, letters, etc. whilst he is incarcerated - we're here to support our own.

ultimately, it isn't about sil's guilt - we all have our own opinions on that. what it's about, for me at least, is how the US government demonstrated again that it cares not for its citizens. (suprise...)

hang in there, both of you.

[ Parent ]
uhm, no. (1.33 / 3) (#114)
by catfarm on Tue Aug 14, 2001 at 04:15:43 PM EST

actually i agree with no carrier... this story smells fishy... all of it... its retarded... it shouldnt have been posted... can you imagine if people posted every injustice ever done with no real information about it.

my dog was killed unfairly, please feel incredibly sorry for me. uh, no thanks.
.....blip
[ Parent ]
You are a moron. (3.33 / 6) (#115)
by theboz on Tue Aug 14, 2001 at 05:43:02 PM EST

this story smells fishy... all of it...

So basically, because we do not have the court documents and stuff yet (here's a clue, if you want it, go find it yourself. There is enough public information about the names and addresses of the parties involved to easily find it online) you don't think it's true. Well, it is ok to be skeptical, but it is fairly rude to just go ahead and assume that someone is a liar when you have no proof that they are, as a good number of the people reading this story have done. That in itself "smells fishy" to me. Can't you people give the benefit of the doubt, especially since it won't affect you if he tells the truth or not?

its retarded...

Well jackass, your post was no great intellectual feat either.

it shouldnt have been posted...

Oh, great lord and master, you are the only person who's opinion matters on kuro5hin. We should only post stories that your royal highness is entertained by. Please get a life. The world does NOT revolve around you despite what mommy and daddy told your spoiled ass. The story was posted because a majority of people found it interesting. And not just a little, but interesting enough to be front page news here. There are stories I hate that get posted too, but I realize that it is up to the majority to decide what gets posted or not. Perhaps you should pull your head from your ass and see the big picture of how kuro5hin.org works. It's a democracy.

can you imagine if people posted every injustice ever done with no real information about it.

I guess you never watch the news on TV or read the newspaper. Not only is a significant amount of the information wrong, but they never cite any sources. If you want to find out where information in the paper came from, you have to go dig it up yourself. If you want to find more information about this case, look at the information I posted in a comment somewhere below. If you want more information, go to google or something, and if you want more than that, get your lazy ass off the sofa and go find it. Court documents are generally public information.

my dog was killed unfairly, please feel incredibly sorry for me. uh, no thanks.

First of all, this was not asking anyone to feel sorry. It's amazing how much people like yourself are reading into this. The purpose of posting this article was to inform K5 users that another K5 user has gone to jail and it is not for a good reason. There was no, "Please pity sil" or "please send him money" in the article. Basically, it was an announcement. As I have stated below, if someone is going to start some fund to collect money for his appeal, or if there is any organization to be started in his honor, I am not the one to do it nor was this article written in an attempt for anything like that. His wife is the one in charge of things, and if she wants to start a campaign to help him she will do it and then it will be announced.

And, if you felt this article was such a waste of time, why did you bother reading through it and all the comments and responding to it? Obviously, if you really believed it was a waste you would have ignored it and blissfully moved on. So please, I know it's a tight fit, but please pull your head from your ass.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Case ID? (4.00 / 5) (#83)
by Signal 11 on Sat Aug 11, 2001 at 11:42:58 AM EST

Can I get a citation / docket # / case ID? You don't need to post all the legal information... with a case ID, I can go down to the federal courthouse and pull the transcripts myself.

Thanks,


--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
[ Parent ]

Small Nitpick (3.66 / 3) (#92)
by strepsil on Sat Aug 11, 2001 at 10:27:59 PM EST

He knows unix...whomever did this didn't even know how to use 'wall' or 'ifconfig', but had to 'man wall' and 'man ifconfig' on that server.

I'm not trying to pass judgement on anything else in the article, but this comment bugs me. I "know" Unix. I also know that I refer to man pages for basic commands like this all the time, since they vary a lot in usage between implementations. OK - wall varies less at a basic level, but still - IRIX's wall provides a parameter for targeting a NIS group, Tru64 can wall an entire cluster and the one on my RedHat box can supress parts of the message header.

Of course, ifconfig varies even more.

My point is that recourse to a man page is not a sign of someone who doesn't "know" their way around Unix. It's just as likely a very experienced person who knows the amount of difference that can exist between Unixes A and B, and takes the couple of seconds necessary to double-check their faulty memory.

Just ask any admin who got very unexpected results the first time they ran killall on a Solaris box if they do this. I bet the answer is "yes".



[ Parent ]
yep (4.00 / 2) (#97)
by SGrl on Sun Aug 12, 2001 at 01:26:12 PM EST

I should have included this I guess: The server was a digitalunix machine, and he has worked for years with that, so he knew it very well. The person who did the crime didn't know it at all though. There are several lines with tries to wall even after 'man wall', and same with ifconfig.

strlen among others have seen the logs, maybe he can fill you in better than I can. I have a lot of things to deal with, and of course I forget parts. You can get on IRC, efnet, channel #antioffline if you want. Some of the people in there know more about the case than I have posted on here. I am usually idle, but there's usually someone awake.

[ Parent ]
So... (2.20 / 5) (#116)
by osm on Wed Aug 15, 2001 at 03:04:17 AM EST

does this mean you're looking for another husband?

--------
4thelulz.org
[ Parent ]

Get back to funny stuff (4.00 / 1) (#117)
by Blarney on Wed Aug 15, 2001 at 03:08:47 PM EST

Why can't you get back to making people laugh? When you told Jin Wicked that she was "no Natalie Portman", that was funny. Your website is funny. This isn't.



[ Parent ]

I've seen detectives and FBI lie on the stand (4.60 / 5) (#89)
by -ryan on Sat Aug 11, 2001 at 01:36:24 PM EST

There is a russian saying a Russian coworker of mine once shared with me:

The rich and the poor both know what the middle class doesn't; the law is corrupt.

It didn't really hit home until I saw Detectives lie on the stand about things that I saw with my own eyes and paid full witness too. I've see FBI agents offer complete fabrications on the stand.

I've seen gov't officials bully witnesses, I've see police assault people as "payback"...

Life is nothing like the "Law & Order" TV series.

Bad Lawyer (4.66 / 3) (#101)
by labradore on Sun Aug 12, 2001 at 05:53:03 PM EST

Assuming Sil's story is true (I have no basis to say whether or not it is but I believe something like this could happen) the basic practical problem here is that he had a shitty lawyer.

OJ Simpson got off. There is no good reason why Sil should not have. The lawyer could find no experts to testify? They lawyer could not get the tainted evidence thrown out? The lawyer could not make it clear to the jury that it was not him? Either the lawyer was shitty or he was guilty. There is no other resonable explanation.

I think the government should be compelled to pay for the entire cost of defense and for compensation for time and money lost during the defense when they bring someone to trial for something like this. It is infuriating to think that my taxes pay for this kind of stupidity.

Cost of lawyers (none / 0) (#125)
by gbnewby on Mon Sep 03, 2001 at 10:38:44 AM EST

OJ Simpson paid millions to his lawyers.

Lawyers charge at least $500/day for trial plus expenses, for a small town. In NYC or other cities, the cost is much higher. Having a trial is incredibly expensive. The loser is often stuck paying for the winner's trial expenses, too.

An article in 2600 last year (I think it was by Agent Steal) mentioned the feds have over a 95% conviction rate. In other words, you can pay as much as you want, but the odds are you will lose. The only way to "win" is to cop a plea bargain - in which case you still probably go to jail, but at least with a lesser sentence.

The facts of the costs of a laywer and the odds of conviction when you go against the feds make fighting and winning a daunting prospect!

[ Parent ]
This is getting ugly.... (4.80 / 5) (#102)
by Blarney on Sun Aug 12, 2001 at 06:23:08 PM EST

This is starting to turn into a flamefest about whether or not Sil could, in fact, actually be guilty, whether SGrl is doing the right thing, and who should get rated to a 1, and it sucks. I'm just a regular K5 user, and I didn't know Sil. However, I'd be willing to donate a bit of cash to a legal appeal fund for Sil because I believe that everyone should be entitled to a competant lawyer that actually makes a case. I would also like to hear anything that Sil feels like writing in jail, because I feel that people shouldn't just disappear into a cage simply because the government is mad at them. I don't really care if he did it or not, cause it's only a stupid computer vandalism incident anyway. Does anyone else feel this way?

Maybe we could get a story in the future on whether Sil is being treated humanely, or whether donations are being requested for a lawyer. See you all on some other thread.

you sorry mother fuckers, your turn next (3.37 / 8) (#111)
by anonymous cowerd on Mon Aug 13, 2001 at 07:39:28 PM EST

I'm reading these God damned comments and at least half the ones I've read so far consist of casuistical reasons why you can't even spare this poor fucker the insignificant and costless effort of being sympathetic toward your jail-bound brother.

Fuck that shit, you fucking cunts.

Listen, one of these days you're going to be out on the street minding your own business and suddenly a bunch of big mean punks are going to come running up on you and start kicking your ass, pounding your face right into the asphalt, right in front of witnesses and everything.

When that happens, tough guys, I hope the drooling watchers stand around and engage in dick-sizing about how tough-minded and unsympathetic they are. like combat hardened soljas watching some village full of civilians getting bombed from a good safe distance; or maybe yammering how you prolly deserved having your ass kicked, for something God-knows-what they stupidly conjecture you might - must - have done; or maybe the skeptics'll look down their noses and decide you're not really getting your ass kicked after all but you and the punks are just staging a pre-rehearsed show, and that's ketchup not blood. Anything rather than stand up and back you up and maybe get their knuckles bruised.

I'd search up Neimoller's famous quote on Yahoo and reprint it here, but you stupid bastards aren't even worth the effort. Y'all go to Hell.

Sincerely, not "yours", WDK

The one thing that really disturbs me about America is that people don't like to read. - Keith Richards

Land of freedom and opportunities, pfft.. (2.00 / 1) (#118)
by slaida1 on Thu Aug 16, 2001 at 10:50:47 AM EST

How many more cases like this you, the educated class of US citizens, need to understand that big nations are always the same? China, former Soviet Union and US are all the same: individuals suffer. Gov doesn't protect you, it desperately struggles to keep itself under control.

There's no moral here, you just got enemy that's way too big to fight. Law didn't serve its purpose to give justice to all. It was used as a tool to make a warning example or get rid of one "spookyman". Flee. Move elsewhere. Or be a martyr and take as many enemies with you as you can.

What was done to Sil was wrong and it ought to get corrected. If enough examples of injustice like this are displayed then law loses it's meaning. What do you do when there's no justice in mans law? Use the law of the jungle: stay away from big ones, they can hurt you badly or be stronger than them.

Major problem is, as long as the masses believe in (nonexistent) justice in courts, your enemy is greatest possible: everybody else. Maybe they don't believe in it, they just hope it doesn't happen to them. Realitycheck: you live in a shithole and got used to the smell. Rest of the sane world is laughing at US and in the same time fearing: those bastards could do anything, let's hope they collapse into civil war or something before that.



Here are some case details (none / 0) (#124)
by Sara Chan on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 04:06:24 PM EST

The court case number is 2000CR1201. The case was officially "terminated" on June 14th. The transcript was officially filed on August 3rd.

Anyone who wants the transcript can get it with the above info. To order it, phone 212 805 0300. Cost, though, is high: about $5/page.

If someone who lives near NYC wants to check things, the details above should be helpful. Visiting the court might make things cheap.

A hacker's story | 125 comments (124 topical, 1 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest Đ 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!