IANAL, but it seems to me that if the judge does not call the lawyers into chambers for consultation, there is no period of commentary on sentencing, or adjustment period.
If the plea is innocent, then the sentence can be appealed through a trial at a higher court -- however, Hammond opted due to the rather excessively abusive CFAA law which would have put him away for 35 years for a guilty plea for ten years. This means he had to live with the judge's ruling which had this "side car" of court supervised idiocy tagged on -- which actually made me immediately think that the judge had read up on Kevin Mitnick's trial and was trying to sound like he knew something he didn't. Couldn't stick with the ten years, had to piss on it, pardon my crudeness. Feh. On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Bernard Tyers - ei8fdb <ei8...@ei8fdb.org>wrote: > It seems a similar stupidly idiotic requirement to the one imposed on > Kevin Mitnick when he was released. > > From memory the requirment on him was that he wasn’t allowed to use > “computers or telephony” equipment. It might have been possible in the > early 2000’s but today? > > IANAL, but would it be worth getting some lawyers to prod this argument > further? “You’re honour, what is defined as cryptography?” At least then > (in the US) there’d be precedent on what is seen as crypto? Or does that > already exist? > > Could be good for an education campaign “Crypto is not the end goal” to > spead the already daily use of cryptography as opposed to the unfortunate > view that “crypto is for turrists and sex fiends”. > > “The government see [online banking] as using cryptography. Everyone uses > it.” > > Just a thought… > > > On 16 Nov 2013, at 06:01, Shava Nerad <shav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It is so common for judges to be complètement sans clue regarding > technology -- I'm sure the judge has no idea how pervasive crypto is, > probably doesn't understand his online banking uses it, and so on. > > > > It's tragic. > > > > bleh. > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Yosem Companys <compa...@stanford.edu> > wrote: > > From: Privarchy Mee <privar...@gmail.com> > > > > Can any of you, most of whom I do not doubt are far more knowledgeable > > about cryptography and how it's conceptualised within the legal > > sphere, offer some insight regarding this? > > > > https://twitter.com/CyMadD0x/status/401443518612512769 > > > > The claim is that Judge Loretta A. Preska, who sentenced Jeremy > > Hammond today, said that for the three years (post-release) that he > > was to spend under supervision, he will not be able to use encryption > > for communication or storage purposes(!) which is practically a legal > > edict to go and build a cabin by Walden Pond. How can this be > > considered anything but cruel and unusual? > > — > > > -------------------------------------- > Bernard / bluboxthief / ei8fdb > > IO91XM / Contact me: me.ei8fdb.org > > > > > -- > Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations > of list guidelines will get you moderated: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at > compa...@stanford.edu. > -- Shava Nerad shav...@gmail.com
-- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
