'LulzSec leader's' victim named: tiny Oz council So: the person alleged to have described himself as the “leader” of LulzSec was arrested for what, exactly? There's been a lot of noise flowing around, and the odd tip-off (including some to The Register in an extensive phone call on April 29). Since we try to avoid jumping ahead of the court process, we have kept our traps …
Every hacker, pirate and DDoS initiator is innocent until proven guilty. The evidence usually proves they did the crime and were not "set up". We'll see how this plays out in court. If he's convicted I hope he does spend 12 years in prison. Japan has the correct solution to digital crime with mandatory prison sentences and high fines. If these people are dumb enough to commit digital crimes then they belong in prison with the other dumbarse criminals.
Several crimes have been committed here: 1) using GoDaddy, 2) Windows host with a direct connection to the Internet, 3) ColdFusion. Anyone could have taken control of that host and used it to serve who knows what nefarious content. Someone at that public body should carry the can and be grateful it was just a low-key defacement this time.
It reeks of entrapment.
Let's suppose he did it: 12 years would be an absurd sentence.
Defacement of council property usually carries less than 12 years when carried out with a spray can. In fact, the Narrabri shire council runs workshops to help the kids channel their graffiti productively. Maybe they'll do the same for this chap as part of a diversionary tactic. http://www.narrabri.nsw.gov.au/print.cfm?page_id=1154
Alternately, a bunch of technophobes and over enthusiastic "cyber" cops are going to get together and burn a techno-witch. A great miscarriage of justice will take place but by and large the low-tech voting masses won't even notice.
Yeah, something doesn't add up, unless the AFP are just blowing smoke out of their ass by saying this guy is some kind of Lulzsec leader or if they're saying this based off of evidence that may be inadmissible. Attacking a small town's city government doesn't really fit, though these assholes will do stuff like that.
For instance when my city attacked a charity for feeding the homeless downtown a couple years back, the Anonyputz types attacked the Bus system's website and knocked the bastard offline completely except for the trip planner that Google hosts, kicking the dog that didn't bite them basically instead of attacking the courts, the cops, the person who filed complaints against them, the city government itsself or that district's councilwoman, or anyone else directly involved with the Police intimidation and harassment that was going on.
Nope, they fucked the people who depend on public transportation instead, who are generally low-income themselves, a small step above the homeless people served by the charity they were "defending". So it wouldn't shock me if he did indeed do something like this to correct some slight or injustice from his point of view.
However, If he is indeed some leader of Lulzsec it would shock me if he got caught doing it.
That a major vandaliser of other peoples websites might get careless when hitting a small target which he/she thought unlikely to have the resources to conduct a major investigation, and thus leave more traces than when attacking a more significant target. Whether that's the case here of course, well I for one have no idea.
Quite, and looking at the map, if he's in Sydney local court, he may well have a personal connection with the town. A hacker is also more likely to make mistakes when they're emotionally invested in the target.
Or, if he did work for them, using a password or other information he knew from the job, rather than obtaining access as an outsider would have to, could also narrow the list of suspects.
Australian law has more in common with us here in Canada than US. People here have gotten house arrest for manslaughter, I wouldn't bet on him getting anywhere near the max. Such possible sentences exist as deterrents and for, a broad law such as this, for the rare infraction that would justify such a sentence (major hacks on targets causing loss of life or massive financial losses).
the punishment fit the crime. Ive I spray painted a massive cock on a government building would I get 12 years in jail. Probably just a fine and community service.
Web defacement is the same except it takes less hard labor to clean it after. If he did hack it, he has the skills to fix the mess, fine him and make him fix the web site as community service.
FFS - I could kill someone with my car and get less jail time.
To much following the Americans lead on this who also need to Get a fucking clue about proportional sentencing.
Again see my point below about conflating the sentence passed with the maximum. You might well get 12 years as a sentence for killing somebody with your car, the maximum being life.
Just as Aush0k, as Flannery is alleged to have called himself online, is in if convicted of the attack he could spend is 12 years in the slammer but that said this is a rather emotive description. What is far more likely is that "AushOK", whilst facing a maximum term of 12 years, will in fact get a couple of months community service.
This post has been deleted by its author
I would agree that the Australian Federal police bragging rights that they have arrested a ‘leader of Lulzsec’ are unjustified, however I think the articles bias towards trivializing these activities misses a more serious point.
Specifically, as reported, the accused worked for a cyber security firm where presumably he had access to confidential client information. These clients included government departments, banks, and law firms.
Whilst the accused actually activities seem to be in UK terms equivalent to defacing the Canvey Island parish council website they are still illegal.
This then leads to the question having discovered his extracurricular activities should the police leave this individual in a position with access to sensitive data without some recourse?
As a final point the article is definitely guilty of conflating the maximum penalty for the offense with the likely charge with which a court would sentence the accused. This seems to be typical of these sort of articles, and indeed forum posts, that attempt to discredit law enforcement efforts against anonymous.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
