Feeds

back to article Teen hacker suspect Ryan Cleary in the clink for bail breach

Teenage LulzSec suspect Ryan Cleary is back behind bars after breaching his bail conditions by going online, it has emerged. Cleary, 19, from Wickford in Essex, who was charged with participating in denial of service attacks against the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the British Phonographic Industry last June, violated an …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Anonymous Coward

Lulz

2
0

Thick eh?

Having known a few for whom it isn't just a badge of the latest trendy "hey, look at me, everyone, I'm different!" identity -- I kinda feel bad for people who actually have Asperger's Syndrome, now that that's the flavor of the month.

And sure, you say, it brings light on the disorder and not incidentally causes money to shower down from the heavens upon the diagnosis -- but if what all the new "Asperger's specialists" are really specializing in is coddling whiny narcissistic scofflaws who're scared of jail, that doesn't do people with the actual disorder much good, does it?

12
4

Re: Thick eh?

I think in this case it's probably genuine. He'd been diagnosed with range of buzzword compliant disorders as a child and had ended up at a special school for boys with emotional & behavioural difficulties.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Thick eh?

I went to not one but two of those kind of schools - and now I stalk the el Reg forums for a non-living!

No offence meant to anyone, I actually did. I'd probably be hacking supermarket trolley coin-slots if it wasn't for these forums keeping me off the streets.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Thick eh?

As an Aspie myself I think people using it as an "I shouldn't be prosecuted for the crime I committed" excuse should get a punitive sentence due to not accepting they are responsible for the consequences of their own actions. There is a gaping chasm between "I didn't understand he was being sarcastic instead of serious" and "I didn't understand that breaking the law by hacking other peoples computers was against the law".

In any case, it should be irrelevant as a point of law. Ignorance of the law is no defence as a principle has existed for thousands of years.

To answer the other point that far too many people get misdiagnosed; Anybody who "grows out of" Asperger's or any other form of HFA wasn't on the spectrum in the first place; you don't "grow out of" having a brain that's wired fundamentally differently to the other 99% of the population.

Also; to the best of my knowledge money does not shower down from the heavens on Aspergers, PDD:NOS or HFA. If you have any evidence to the contrary then I am sure the National Autistic Society would be very interested to hear of it.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

@Peter2 - Re: Thick eh?

I do not know about the situation anywhere else, but where I am (New York City) there is a great advantage to getting a ASD diagnosis: the NYC school system devotes 25% of its budget to "special needs children", and the resources they get per child far surpasses that given to ordinary children. Naturally, there are no small number of parents who want their children enrolled in these special programs, as they have a better chance of getting a decent education than the children stuck in the underfunded "ordinary children" school system.

As a social policy, this is really, really stupid. It is a typical "feel good, do bad" social policy: resources go to where they will do the least good. Every dollar, in the long term, would benefit society much more by making sure "ordinary" children get a good education, and not being neglected in favor of "special needs" children whose contribution to society would never approach that of "ordinary children' if sufficient funds were provided so that they would get a decent education.

2
1
Mushroom

Re: @Peter2 - Thick eh?

AC says: Naturally, there are no small number of parents who want their children enrolled in these special programs, as they have a better chance of getting a decent education than the children stuck in the underfunded "ordinary children" school system.

----

Really? You really wished you were in a remedial reading class. Or a "how to tie your shoe" and "eat food by yourself" class? While they may take 25% of the budget and get more attention I assure you the education these kids get covered areas you didn't need to be spending time on. You make it sound like they got into AP Physics while you were stuck in Trig. It's more like they spent extra time learning things you learned years before. No advantage given.

Referring to your remark about special needs kids costing more than regular kids, it is true that in society those more in need will consume more of the resources, but what's the alternative? Killing off anyone who doesn't get straight A's?

It's an interesting world you live in.

Conversely here in Arizona we have a voucher program. It means we can have private charter schools get public school funding for every kid they take in. The problem is, they don't have the oversight that public schools are required to have. So they do not provide proper education to disabled children (they must claim they do but they will discourage disabled children from attending or only provide day care instead of instruction) but they take the same amount of money away from public schools that due to strict oversight must provide much more expensive (often one on one) education to those same students. It means the public schools are left with a higher percentage of disabled children yet with a smaller percentage of funding.

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: @Peter2 - Thick eh?

[i]the NYC school system devotes 25% of its budget to "special needs children" <citation needed>[/i]

Even if we accept the premise that 25% of your local education budget goes to "special needs children" how many are of these are autistic? Seriously?

Special needs =! Autism.

Autists represent only 1% of the population, and I rather strongly doubt that Autists account for 100% of your school's special needs budget.

It's interesting to see that you feel that "special needs children" shouldn't receive and education because you don't feel they could ever contribute anything to society. I mean, good job that no scientists (like say, Newton & Einstien for instance) have ever been Autistic, right? Oh, wait.

Might I suggest that you take the time to do some reading on Autism before you dig yourself in any deeper?

0
0

Re: @Peter2 - Thick eh?

Totally unrelated: In what way does claiming dead luminaries for "Autism" differ from claiming dead luminaries for "Mormonism"? No possibility of proof either way, after all...

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: @Peter2 - Thick eh?

[i]Might I suggest that you take the time to do some reading on Autism[/i]

Maybe YOU ought to do some reading about the New York City school system and court decisions about what kind of schooling must be provided for special needs children.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: @Peter2 - Thick eh?

That's fine then; as long as your not claiming anybody in past history is NeuroTypical without a clinical diagnosis proving it. Fair's fair.

That leaves us on an even playing field looking at people today, and I think it would be a brave person who would put a case forward that as a percentage NeuroTypicals contribute more to society.

Besides, "contribution to society" is a stupid argument. What "contribution to society" do whole ranges of society actually make? Most people would agree that politicians, lawyers etc are a drain on society rather than a benefit.

The biggest problems Autists actually have is ignorance of what Autism actually is, and bigotry. Personally, I think this is being approached from the wrong direction. If you think that I should not be entitled to the same basic human rights as you are, then you need to be making the argument against me having the rights I actually have.

0
0
FAIL

Holy wow

Neurotypicality, to grant your terms arguendo, is the human default -- hence 'typical', which I appreciate is intended to carry fewer connotations than 'normal' and its antonym do, but which nonetheless denotes the same thing. It is thus far more reasonable (not to mention far more parsimonious) to surmise that your favorite dead luminaries were neurotypical, than to surmise they were autistic, bipolar, schizophrenic, or what-have-you. I've seen all those claimed on behalf of any number of famous dead people; the disorder of the moment changes, depending on the ideological and subcultural prejudices of the person making the argument, while the nature of the argument itself does not.

"I think it would be a brave person who would put a case forward that as a percentage NeuroTypicals contribute more to society."

No doubt you do. Given that no one, yourself included, has suggested that people with autism-spectrum disorders make up more than about one percent of the population -- and especially given the explosive increase in ASD diagnosis rates over the last, what, decade or two? -- I think bravery really is not required to contend that, outliers disregarded, people who are not on the spectrum have contributed more to society than those who are.

"Contribution to society" is a stupid argument? What do you prefer in place of it? Have you never heard of taxation? Whence do you imagine comes the money for programs like US Social Security's SSI, or whatever the NHS's disability support is called? -- hell, the NHS itself, for that matter?

If you're going to argue that people who generally make a lot of money, and don't as a whole spend nearly so much effort dodging taxes as progressive cant would have us all believe, are a net deficit to society, then you need at least to be willing to entertain the same argument with regard to those whose disabilities render them unable to work and pay taxes at all. Since taxation is, in these degraded times, the primary fashion in which any individual citizen (subject, &c.) contributes to the maintenance of the society which throughout his lifetime maintains him, it is from an economic perspective quite reasonable to argue that the true "drain on society" is, in fact, someone who is unable to take responsibility for his own maintenance, and for whom responsibility must be assumed by society as a whole because that's ultimately safer and healthier for everyone than leaving him to beg in the street.

No doubt you'll disagree with that argument in the strongest terms you have ready to hand -- but you're the one who brought "drain on society" into this at all, which strictly limits my sympathy for your upset when someone snatches the weapon out of your hand and aims it in a direction you weren't expecting.

I can't speak to "[t]he biggest problems Autists [sic] actually have". I wonder whether you can; you seem driven largely by ideology here, more interested in proving that your particular subset of humanity is deserving of special privileges and regard not merited by ordinary, 'neurotypical' humans. I don't imagine you see that as a problem, and frankly if it gets you through the day I don't care if you believe the sky is paisley and rains ice cream every day at noon -- but this ideological bias of yours does absolutely nothing for the coherence of your arguments, which boil down to "Autists yay! Neurotypicals boo!", and that did seem worth pointing out in some detail.

In accordance with the ancient dictum on engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, I'll leave the conversation here. Y'all have fun, now.

1
1
Bronze badge

Re: Holy wow

My point is that Autists are considered by many (apparently including yourself) as only being able to exist through "special privileges and regard not merited by ordinary, 'neurotypical' humans ".

This view in simplest terms is bigoted and unjust, and it's this view I want to kill simply because it's the problem Autists have, not Autism. For many if not most people with on the spectrum there are just as many advantages as disadvantages to the condition.

Like many other people your misconceptions of what Autism is are apparently completely based on organisations "pity" campaigning against Autism in the US to raise funds. Strangely, they don't seem to be interested in putting across an accurate picture. I guess they think that doing so would reduce the number of people donating money (!)

I have never received anything from the state other than the ordinary education everybody gets. I have never taken *ANY* money from the state in any form of benefits whatsoever. I do pay quite large sums in taxes from my wages. I personally want nothing more than to *not* have to hide the fact that I am Autistic as if it was something to be ashamed of.

If I do not mention I am Autistic then I am treated as a normal human being. I am rather accustomed and attached to being treated this way.

If I do mention I am Autistic then people immediately assume I am incapable of doing things I am in fact very, very good at doing based on pure prejudice. If someone knows me and I do disclose the fact I am Autistic then people are likely to tell me that I can't be, because I look "normal". From attitudes displayed towards us it is obvious that we are viewed as sub human scum who can only exist from charity as it is "safer and healthier for everyone than leaving him to beg in the street."

This view is no different than making the same assumption about someone based on their skin colour or any other form of prejudice. It has no basis in fact.

Is wanting some dignity an ideological point? You bet. It's so ideological that it's a guaranteed right to every human on earth. Is wanting that right a problem?

I would simply ask that you take the time to read about what Autism actually is and challenge your own prejudices.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/article361.html

It's the information age; there is no excuse for ignorance.

0
1

Re: Holy wow

I know I said I'd stay out of it, but I've got a few minutes to kill, and what I'm wondering is: Okay, you're autistic. How nice for you. Why does anyone need to know? Given that, judging by your own statements, your condition is invisible unless you make it otherwise -- is it perhaps just possible that your dignity is impaired less by your participation in the ubiquitous human experience of being on the wrong end of some asshole's stereotype, than by your apparent driving need to hang a damned sandwich sign around your neck on the subject?

0
1
FAIL

Not locked up for going on line...

But for being a crap hacker and being caught going on line...

7
0

No, for sending an email...

He sent an email to a police informant. Makes it a bit difficult to cover your tracks no matter how good a hacker you are.

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: No, for sending an email...

"My friend is typing this for me..."

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Didn't Euro Lefties...

...have it agreed that internet access is a human right?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Didn't Euro Lefties...

It does seem a bit of a severe requirement. I think if I was given those bail conditions I would just tell them to lock me up instead, there's not a hope I'd manage to stay offline for even a week unless physically restricted!

1
0
Anonymous Coward

WTF

I don't understand why the courts ban suspects from going online - it's an irrational abuse of power.

They should order him not to commit any new crimes and be done with it. If he then commits a real crime the law will deal with it separately, that's what the law's for right ? Checking email, etc isn't illegal so I don't see why they should ban him from going online at all.

I guess what I'm saying is the court shouldn't be allowed to ban him from doing something that isn't illegal.

6
7
Silver badge
Thumb Down

RTFA

It's in the first sentence: "back behind bars after breaching his bail conditions".

Courts ban people from doing non-illegal stuff all the time as conditions for bail. For example ordering suspects to house arrest, to not travel outside of the city, not to meet certain people, and so on. Bail conditions are a simple but effective way of safeguarding the integrity of a trial without having to keep the suspect locked up until the trial. Bail conditions are there to prevent the suspect from packing bags and heading for Argentina, colluding with co-defendants to concoct common stories, or intimidating witnesses.

It's not ideal, especially if the suspect is found not guilty, but hey, haven't you heard, it's not always an ideal world

6
1
Facepalm

Re: WTF

Its common enough for bail conditions to prohibit actions that are nominally legal.

"order him not to commit any new crimes"

We're all under order not to commit any crimes, new or otherwise. That's what the law is. If he is guilty then he's already demonstrated that he won't obey an instruction not to commit crimes...

4
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: WTF

Colluding with a criminal involved in your case would be a breach of most bail terms, regardless of him having done it by online means.

5
0
Bronze badge
Windows

Re: RTFA

They'll ban him from writing letters next....Or postcards.

(Does anyone still own a fountain pen, by the way? Lost my 'Cross' gold about 20 years ago. Yet, I was 'Ink Monitor' - to fill up the inkwells for the entire school when I was about 10 years old. Mum used to beat me to a pulp, get me to lick 't motorway* clean (etc), if I had a tiny drop of ink on my pristine white school shirt)

* Actually, I think it was the cattle-grid. Not sure we had any motorways then.

1
2
Silver badge

Re: WTF *or* An order to not commit new crimes. : )

"They should order him not to commit any new crimes and be done with it."

The idea that a court needs to order someone not to commit any new crimes brings a smile to my face! You probably don't realize this, but the purpose of any criminal law is to order people not to commit that particular crime. And it is considered that the passage of the law is, by itself, enough to compel people to not commit the crime, irrespective of any person being specifically ordered by a judge to either not commit the crime or abide by the specific law.

It works like this: If you don't commit any new crimes, the judge has no reason to give you a harsher sentence when he passes sentence and can, if he sees fit, show leniency. If you have committed new crimes, then the judge assumes that you are a particularly egregious offender and possible recidivist and deserve that harsher sentence.

"I guess what I'm saying is the court shouldn't be allowed to ban him from doing something that isn't illegal."

It is *extremely* common for people to be released on bail only having agreed to conditions that prohibit them from doing things that are not illegal. And if they don't agree to the conditions, then they don't get released on bail. And they know full well that violating the conditions of release, even by doing something not in itself illegal, is sufficient for bail to be revoked.

That's why it's called "conditional release". Because you only get released having agreed to abide by the conditions the judge imposes.

0
0

What a complete plonker

2
1
Anonymous Coward

So after being told by a judge that "you can go free as long as you do not access the Internet or Email on any device" and agreeing to those terms he decided to email somebody.

What an Idiot.

Anon because well thats what he was

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Too stupid to be on the street

Is it any wonder these morons are being hauled off to jail weekly?

0
0
Stop

Human Rights

Whilst it's easy to scoff at the 'human right' aspect to the internet... we're fast approaching an era where the internet is essential to 'getting things done'.

If I was on bail as a political prisoner (which I consider Cleary to be the equivalent of), then I'd have to break such bail conditions too as most of my banking is done online (telephone banking is an option but a major pain to go through just to check your balance/move funds) - I'd have no choice unless the courts were providing me food, accommodation and entertainment.

And to what extent does this ban over protocols reach. If he were to watch a Smart TV that was streaming over http - would he be breaching bail? What about if he was to order train tickets from a kiosk that connected to a remote server... uh oh breach! Pick up a house phone connected to Vonage... breach!

And what about access to goods and services that are convenient online - council services, bill payments. What about special discounts and offers for ordering online? If competition law requires condiment vendors to provide 'no purchase necessary' to enter competitions, then where is the law that says someone who can't go online should be given the same opportunities and offers as those who can?

So not a human right, but if this was 1982 as opposed to 2012 I believe internet regulation would have more of a focus on protection, and less on control.

0
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: Human Rights

Most of your arguments seem less to do with actually getting it done than getting it done without getting off your arse and out of the house. If people worried about about losing access to goods and services that are convenient online they might think a bit more before doing something stupid in the first place, I'd hope. If people here are anything to go by the threat of losing the Internet is worse than incarceration or, probably, physical torture. Seems to me the courts might want to think about doing more of this. Or if it's too difficult to enforce (typical Reg reader response about any law/ruling they don't like,) stop the bail thig altogether and slap people straight into prison.

3
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Human Rights

You've got my vote!

0
0
FAIL

Re: Human Rights

I agree, having a "do not use internet" condition of bail is akin to being told not to use pen and paper. Idiotic.

1
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: Human Rights

No it's not. There is no God given right nor need to use the internet. It's a convenience, not a necessity. he should have thought about this before he hacked.

2
0
Facepalm

@AC 17.18 Re: Human Rights

getting it done without getting off your arse and out of the house

Ever tried doing local banking whilst overseas (as I am much of the time)? What about ordering specific items from abroad, should we just jump on a boat or plane then?

I'm rather surprised you're using the convenience of the internet to comment, instead of physically penning a letter, then getting off your arse to post it to your favourite Newspaper, which you buy and read in print.

Idiot.

0
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: @AC 17.18 Human Rights

Ever heard of phone banking, bank wire service, snail mail, FEDEX ? What do you think people did before the Net existed? Jeesch...

0
1
Bronze badge

Re: @AC 17.18 Human Rights

If you were on bail, you wouldn't be leaving the country so that's irrelevant.

2
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: @AC 17.18 Human Rights

"Ever tried doing local banking whilst overseas...." Well, seeing as I'm pretty sure Cleary's bail terms would have included no foreign travel, your point is simply idiotic. What you also fail to consider is that bail is by agreement, giving the bailed the advantages of not being in prison, where Internet access is extremely limited.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.