Hacker faces 105 years inside after FBI 'sexploitation' arrest The FBI has announced the arrest of a 27-year-old man over charges that he hacked computers and online accounts belonging to 350 female victims and blackmailed them into providing him with nude photographs and video calls. Karen "Gary" Kazaryan, 27, was arrested in Glendale, California on Tuesday after being indicted on 15 …
that may be true, but you are not comparing apples to apples. he did this 350 times. so lets say he was a serial killer who killed 350 people:
350*25= 8750 years.
also let's do the opposite and see how much time he gets for each woman he victimized:
150/350=0.43 years
So that means for each person he blackmailed, he gets less then 1/2 a year. That doesn't sound that outlandish to me, quite the opposite, it sounds lenient.
"150/350=0.43 years
So that means for each person he blackmailed, he gets less then 1/2 a year. That doesn't sound that outlandish to me, quite the opposite, it sounds lenient."
He should have committed his crimes in the UK. Then he'd be forced to serve all those sentences concurrently rather than consecutively. With good behaviour he'd be out in less than three months!
20 years or so would do just fine.
Yes, he harmed a lot of people, but he did not kill anyone or rape anyone. If every victim thought "20 years for me", I am sure they'd feel vindicated.
Of course, if every victim thinks "20/350 for me" then less so, but that still leaves the fact that this scumbag's life is pretty much done with. 20 years will be just as dissuasive as 105 to the average Joe and a lot less costly. Just make sure the penalties for single offenses doesn't drop too low either, rather than salivating about massive sums.
Anyways, 105 years is a possible sentence, not necessarily the final tally. Much as this loser is a scum, I figure some notion of proportionality to the individual offenses should prevail.
for a long time they've needed to get a fucking clue on compound sentencing.
You charge a person on the most serious crime committed.
Its so stupid that a person who robbed 10 stores with a banana could get a longer sentence than a person who robbed 1 store but killed the owner.
I say again, America in general need to get a fucking clue.
> for a long time they've needed to get a fucking clue on compound sentencing.
They need to get a clue in the UK as well.
For 8 weeks the area I live in was ravaged by 2 scumbags who burgled as many homes as possible. The police knew who they were but were powerless without any hard evidence. The reason they were doing this? They were awaiting sentencing on similar charges and knew they would get jail time. Since all sentences in the UK are concurrent they had a "free pass". If they were caught they would have it added to their charges and it would make no difference to the sentence they were going to get.
> ... you go to jail until your sentencing.
And the couple of weeks you spend in jail before sentencing counts as time served so you get out earlier.
The simple truth is that if you know you will be sentenced to jail then you have "free pass" to commit crime until the sentencing.
Yeah, it is. Southeast Asia, especially areas that were under British Protectorates or Suzerainty toward the UK like Burma/Myanmar and Nepal.
You dont see it much in areas that were formerly run by the French like Viet Nam and Cambodia though.
Hell in Burma, an entire ethnic group is called the Karen. They've been fighting a war against the Myanmar Government since the 70's also.
This post has been deleted by its author
Yes. Welcome to the sexual double standard.
We still live in a culture where it's cool for guys to have sex, but women who have sex are castigated as "sluts" and "tramps" (which rather brings up the question of who these cool guys are supposed to be having sex WITH). Women who are revealed to have naked pics of themselves face significant social, and in some cases financial, censure; there are still quite a few places in the US where a woman who has naked pics of herself spread about can, for instance, lose her job.
A lot of folks believe the answer is "well, just don't take any naked pics, then!" Seems to me that line of reasoning is basically the realm of people who are fine with double standards. Bit like going into Iran and saying "Well, just wear the burka, then!" The real solution, seems to me, is that if it's OK for men to be sexual, it's OK for women to be sexual too.
Franklin, before you start parroting feminist rhetoric, please take a look at my recent Reg post here (it's about 2/3 of the way down the page, under the title "Different Standards") where I discuss the origins and reasons behind the "slut/stud" paradigm in detail. If this is a double standard, then so is the double standard in which men expected to pay for and raise other men's kids as their own because the mothers have lied about paternity, since a mother knows her baby is hers, but a father has no way of being sure. That's why this paradigm exists in every culture on the planet.
"Franklin, before you start parroting feminist rhetoric, please take a look at my recent Reg post here (it's about 2/3 of the way down the page, under the title "Different Standards") where I discuss the origins and reasons behind the "slut/stud" paradigm in detail."
Your reasons remind me a lot of evolutionary psychology: truthy-sounding rationalizations for cultural norms.
Of course, evo psych is what social scientists point to when they want to say "Man, that's not really science," and honestly, that's what your "explanation" sounds like to me. If men seriously were motivated by a desire not to raise other people's children, they'd castigate male promiscuity as well as female promiscuity; after all, last time I checked, if your wife makes a baby with someone who isn't you, chances are good there's another man involved in the process at some point along the way.
Calling the notion that double standards like this are bad "feminist rhetoric" is equal parts amusing and appalling. I'm always a bit perplexed by folks who seem to think that "feminism" is something bad. In matters not requiring physical possession of a penis or a vagina, folks ought to receive equal treatment and opportunity--is that really such a scary idea?
"folks ought to receive equal treatment and opportunity-is that really such a scary idea?"
I'm right with you on that - depending on what you mean by "equal". Absolutely I hold that one's gender should in no way limit the choices available in any field - be it career, travel, hobby, anything at all. Believe me, I've encountered racial and sexual discrimination myself, so I know how infuriating it is. And I believe that everyone deserves a fair go, first and foremost.
The problem I've encountered is that some people, mainly feminists, and especially male feminists, often seem to have a weird, Orwellian definition of the word equal - in that all people are equal, but some people are more equal than others. In most dictionaries equal has the definition "having the same value; the same as." But let me cite an example of the kind of Orwellian thinking I'm talking about here: a so-called "equal opportunity" pamphlet given out to all students at the local TAFE (tertiary college). The first sentence in this pamphlet is "Equal opportunity does not mean everyone is treated the same."
Now to paraphrase the great Douglas Adams, this is obviously some strange usage of the word equal that I was not previously aware of. It does mean "the same as" in every dictionary I've ever read. But not to these people. What "equal" means to these people is something along the lines of "You are not allowed to stereotype people along the lines of gender or culture, but all white males are privileged, rich and powerful, and so don't deserve equal treatment like females, non-whites, and so on."
If anyone cannot see the absolute hypocrisy inherent in that statement they have a serious problem. I, for no other reason than being white and male, have been refused entry to educational courses, passed over for jobs and promotions, and denied my right of equal opportunity many times - simply because my skin is a particular light colour and I was born with a penis. This, by people who claim that stereotyping others on gender and skin colour is a bad thing. Obviously it's not such a bad thing if you happen to be white and male.
This is why I don't like "feminism". I do like "egalitarianism" - the belief that everyone should have the same rights, not just that women should have equal rights in the Orwellian sense. The clue is in the name: feminism. It's about rights for women, not rights for everybody. And this is as bad a thing as masculism - rights for men only, which in my view is just as ridiculous. Do you see?
So no, it's not a scary idea at all. What's scary is that an awful lot of people seem to be buying into the idea that it's OK to vilify, ostracise and discriminate against men in the name of so-called "equality", while sanctimoniously (and hypocritically) beating their breasts about stereotypes. And what's scariest of all is that people are trying to justify this stance under the banner of fairness and equal treatment for all.
And it's not.
I get really sick of the "equal rights" argument because in most cases, the implementation includes state sponsered discrimination against those who are in the numerical majority, IE "Racial Equality" where blacks get preference over ANYONE who is not black just to "even the score".
A prime example is that of Police and Firefighter or other civil service exams where there is a test taken to determine the knowledge and physical prowess possesed by the candidate. These tests are then thrown out when "Equality Regulations" dictate that racial heritage or gender must be the overriding consideration.
There have been a number of court cases in the USA that have determined that these tests CANNOT be thrown out anymore to fulfill race or gender "quotas". Damages have been awarded to a number of plaintiffs.
I propose that no employer should be allowed to meet or know the age, race, gender, health status etc of a potential employee before they are hired. Everything would be done completely anonymously and be based soley on the candidates test score.
It is time for true equality across the board.
Re: differences in attitude towards men and women sleeping around:
This has been attributed to parenthood. A woman knows if a baby is hers or not (with the exception of a mix-up at the maternity suite, of cause), where as a man doesn't know. DNA tests can only show a probability of parenthood, not provide absolute proof.
"Women who are revealed to have naked pics of themselves face significant social, and in some cases financial, censure; there are still quite a few places in the US where a woman who has naked pics of herself spread about can, for instance, lose her job."
And men don't?
Are you serious?!
The stigma and professional repercussions of naked pics on-line are the same for both genders, in this context.
This post has been deleted by its author
There's that other guy who asked for underage boy pix and then proceeded to blackmail them into boning 'em.
Anyway, any of these cases of blackmail is just wrong. Nabbing a couple of naked pix from someone else's computer is already unethical, but using them for blackmail purposes is just plain evil.
I'm having trouble grokking this: "He would then contact these friends, pretending to be the victim, and persuade them to disrobe so he could take pictures of them".
So Alice has a saucy pic on her drive. Attacker Bob finds it. He then impersonates Alice, tracks down her friends Carol and Diana...and persuades *them* to disrobe and send Alice the shots?
What on earth did Bob-as-Alice write to Carol and Di that persuaded them to drop their clothes? "Hi Carol, Thanks for helping out at the PTA meeting last night. Now drop your panties and send me the pics"
El Reg - please check the story?? It does not compute.
Might be: Some girls like girls.
So attacker finds saucy pictures on Alice's (who is into girls) drive, and Alice knows Carol and Diana (also into girls - note the "details on their female friends" part).
Then Bob pretends to be Alice and sends Carol and Dinah a saucy e-mail suggesting pics for pics.
Easy to compute from here.
Just guessing though.
"Yep, do anything a few times and you get a life sentence.
After you've committed a crime a certain number of times there's no incentive to stop, because when you get caught you are going to prison forever."
Yup. It's out of whack. The US has the highest prison population in the world by a country mile and proportionally it's on a par with Stalinist Russia.
People deserve punishing for crimes (and punishing harshly), but when the difference between robbery and robbery with murder is so small that you're better off not leaving a witness alive, it encourages criminals to 'go for broke', rather than curtail their activities in order to get lower sentences.
"A replay of the situation that led to the saying "Might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb". Disproportionate sentencing helps no-one except a few people who have used serious personality disorders to get into positions of power."
I'd totally forgotten about that old saying!
Sadly, intentions to lighten sentencing to reduce crime would be political suicide, no matter how sensible and logical it is. It goes against my instincts too, but it's pretty clear that if you're going to put someone away for life for three minor crimes, that the felon isn't going to mind committing a ton more if they think it'll help them either get away with it, or unless there's another really good reason to stop.
I don't know if this is still the case, but read a book in the Seventies by a guy who was describing how at one point he lost all his money in California, apparently debtors where entitled to demand double the original debt if you couldn't pay, which sounds like absolute lunacy or more correctly vindictive sadism
ribosome, to find persecuting vindictive sadists in 17th century England, you need look no further than the C of E establishment. (Why do you think Puritans left England for the Netherlands? Their desire was to be left alone to worship according to their own lights, and the C of E forbade them to do so under pain of torture.)
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/1369348
I've often wondered where all those wankymen bonerpix come from on the doofus contact sites. Maybe those poor vulnerable sensitive heteroguys were blackmailed into waving *their* willies online. I always assumed they lifted them from Grindr.
As for the FBI, I assume they work on the "300 strikes and out" principle when it comes to sextorted laydeepr0n..
Old-fashioned and repressed.
There is nothing wrong with skin - we just live in a very curious social construct that says covering up is somehow morally better than nakedness, rather than being something purely practical that should be done in response to environmental conditions.
The only way these girls could be blackmailed, I'd assume, would be because he already has one or more full frontal pics to use as leverage. So why would they just produce more of the same knowing if he's blackmailed once he probably won't stop after the second set and will then have even more leverage?
If the (original) pictures aren;t that racy then the threat/blackmail wouldn't really stand. It all sounds a bit weird to me, if you've already seen them all starkers and just get a few more pics from different angles what's the point...
I wonder what the ratio of going through with his demands vs telling him to fornicate off are. Must be a few weighed up the options I guess.
The originals might just be boobs or full frontal. The latter extortion ones may be touch your toes, ankles as earrings, root vegetables etc. Use your imagination, it's hardly going to be the same but turned a little to the right. I still can't understand why they did it though. The hole, as they say, is just getting deeper.
Who have gotten used to everything they do and say being instantly broadcast to everyone they know will be less constrained by the corrupt standards of old. Maybe 'sexting' will make the human body a bit less taboo. We can only hope.
Nude paintings art art vs public nakedness is degenerate
Looking at naked people, natural vs being a naked person, natural
skimpy beach wear acceptable vs skimpy evening wear slutish/weird
ad nauseum
My IT lessons at school involved learning:
10 PRINT "Hello World!"
20 GOTO 10
and trying to be first to get there to have a go on the Acorn not the BBC Basics.
I would hope that IT now covers far more, in fact if I were in charge I'd have a technical lesson and then alternate that with one about other aspects of IT and how it affects our lives. Learning how to use a computer isn't just about programming these days or hardware like it was when I was in secondary school in the early 90's but about so much more. Lessons on how to secure your data, including pictures you might not want to get out, should be part of the school curriculum. Like it or not, IT should also be a mandatory lesson up there with Maths, English and Science.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
