Man charged in nude celebrity hacking case A Florida man hacked into the email accounts of actresses Scarlett Johansson and Mila Kunis, and as many as 50 other celebrities and made off with nude photos, movie scripts, and other personal information, federal prosecutors said. Christopher Chaney, 35, of Jacksonville, Florida, obtained personal information about his …
I suspect a number probably worked out from looking at the maximum sentence for each charge perhaps? As in, he's actually being charged with 50 counts of breaking the same law, each of which carries a min/max sentence?
121 years from 50 victims = 29 months per individual charge (assuming each victim equates to one charge on the charge sheet)?
Prosecutors in the US like to trot out the numbers like 121 as a bargaining chip.
Even if convicted he will probably do less than 5 and more like 2 or 3 years.
The big numbers is pure bluff and is rarely if ever charged (and received). Its a scare tactic to the defendant so that they will plead to a lesser charge. Although it really comes down if its a federal case and the crime involved. There (depending on the crime) are mandatory sentencing numbers. Even then its up to the judge (in most case but not always). Of course if the judge is up for election and he wants to appear law and order type he will hand out the stiffest sentences he can possibly allowed to.
Its a flaw in the US system that some judges have to run for election. and have to prove they are "tough on crime" (usually in Texas or Arizona & Oklahoma) You know the type of states that can't wait to execute the criminals like the governor of texas who is proud that he sent over 160 men to death.
There's an important lesson in this, folks.
Hack thousands of Web sites, stuff them full of redirectors to faux-"Canadian" pharmacy pages and/or virus and malware droppers; get away scott-free, if you ever even get investigated at all.
Take some naked pictures from the email accounts of some famous movie stars, face more than a century in prison.
Oy.
Pics, please! Obviously, just so I can gauge the seriousness of the crime.
Of course, that would also make for an interesting defence tactic - request that all the pics allegedly lifted have to be displayed in court, and then request a trial with public gallery - how many of the stars would be keen to have their smut pics aired in a public court?
What laws did this guy actually break? He used publicly available information to reset someone's password. How is that hacking?
As mentioned above, if people are so unbelieveably stupid that they;
A) use their mothers maiden name as the answer to "What is your mother's maiden name"
B) Take nude pictures of themselves
C) Keep said pictures on a web-mail account
Then they just deserve a little pain to remind them not to be so stupid. It isn't as if any actual harm has been done. Nobody got hurt. No property was stolen.
If I left my front door wide open and someone walked in and took photocopies of my documents the police would shrug and tell me I was lucky they didn't do worse and hand me a leaflet telling me how to secure my home properly.
Whatever the US equivalent of the Computer Misuse Act is.
Yes, there is some fail on the part of the celebs.
Yes, there is some fail on the part of the e-mail providers.
Yes, 121 years seems excessive.
An easy to commit crime, is still a crime though. Or are you saying that if you drop your car keys outside your house, your car is fair game?
"Or are you saying that if you drop your car keys outside your house, your car is fair game?"
Absolutely not. But he didn't steal anything. In this case, as I made VERY clear in my example, a better analogy would be "If I drop my car keys outside my house, is it okay for someone to open my car and take a copy of the photo I left on the front seat and then replace the photo?". Nothing was stolen so the "taking my car" analogy is misleading and emotive. The "Victims" have lost nothing. No posessions were stolen. No posessions were damaged. No harm was caused other than to their ego and some embarassment.
He's only 35 years old. He can't possibly be expected to act like an adult at such a young age. Cut the guy some slack and sentence him to 75 years with no early out under any circumstances. A sentence of 121 years seems cruel and excessive when 75 years will get the point across.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
