, SecurityFocus 2003-09-09
SACRAMENTO, Calif.--A federal judge ordered Adrian Lamo released to his parents' custody Tuesday afternoon, but barred the hacker from using computers, and ordered him to obtain full-time employment pending trial.
Expand all |
Post comment
I feel much safer now.
2003-09-09
The 420 Zodiac (4 replies)
The 420 Zodiac (4 replies)
Lamo surrenders, is released
2003-09-10
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Lamo surrenders, is released
2003-09-10
D (1 replies)
D (1 replies)
$300,000 in database research charges
2003-09-10
The420Zodiac (4 replies)
The420Zodiac (4 replies)

This jurists' ignorance could not be more obvious if it were a sword and balance Gorbachevesque birthmark. Comparing the actions of Mr. Lamo to those of vx writers shows his utter inability to grasp the current technology, it's uses or it's users.
Stating that he finds it wearisome demonstrates his bias. I'm quite sure that most local magistrates find the never-ending procession of DWI, Assault, Larceny, Narcotics Violations, and Deadbeat Dad cases crossing their docketts wearisome as well, but if they told every defendant standing before their bench how tired they were of their ilk then they might well not be a magistrate long.
On the bright side, this particular judge will not have anything to say in the fate of Adrian Lamo, on the dark side, the Federal prosecutors and judges in New York will. If you think it was some magic coincidence that Lamo was charged just after one of the busiest months for Internet worms this year then you are fooling yourself. Adrian will have not friend one in that courtroom, and he will certainly not have anyone deciding his fate that cares about the "slight" differences in his activities that separate him from your typical hacker.
But then again with Marcus Ranum screaming for life sentences (even for Mr. Lamo), it might not matter how technically inclined his judges or jurors might be. Seems everyone is out for blood these days. Maybe it's time I started going for the jugular as well...
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/6907/22127#22127