Feeds

back to article Australian Feds charge 17-year-old 'Anon' with four crimes

Australia's Federal Police (AFP) has announced a 17-year-old has been charged for alleged crimes undertaken in the name of Anonymous. The AFP has issued a statement about the arrest, but won't say anything else on the matter. The statement “A 17-year-old youth appeared in Parramatta Children's Court on Friday (5 April 2013) to …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge

Delay.

"The statement also says the youth's home was searched in November 2012. ...the most high-profile Anonymous attack in Australia during 2012 saw the release of customer records belonging to telco AAPT in August."

That would seem to be a fairly long time between the search and this announcement. I think that it would be reasonable to assume that the delay could be defined as the interval of time between the moment that they convinced the kid to roll on his comrades (which probably happened as soon as he and his parents saw the search warrant) and the conclusion of the ensuing operation in which he helped authorities identify and develop cases against his aforementioned comrades.

3
0
Silver badge
Meh

At least

At least in OZ they admit to arresting him.

The Americans would deny all knowledge of the arrest as he is spirited away into Oblivion.

2
0
Mushroom

put him in prison together with the other terrorists, the bomb kind, and make a reality show out of it. that will teach the other "0nions", perhaps.

or let each of those, whose details were leaked by him, slap him.

it's always the folk that has to bear the costs of 0nion arrogance.

5
9
Silver badge
FAIL

Whoops

He was Anonymous but not anonymous.

3
0
Silver badge
Headmaster

"He was Anonymous but not anonymous."

Actually he is still anonymous. As a minor his name is protected.

1
1
Silver badge

Re: "He was Anonymous but not anonymous."

Actually he is still anonymous. As a minor his name is protected.

He's anonymous to us but not to the legal system. They count, we don't.

3
0
Silver badge
Joke

@Mahatma

Or he wasn't Anonymous enough ;-)

Maybe that's why they chose this name; if you're not living up to the name you'll be your own worst enemy.

0
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Whoops

>"He was Anonymous but not anonymous."

Shouldn't have used a low orbit ion cannon that blasts his IP address to the world then.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Scapegoating at its best ! Good job Australia!

3
10
Bronze badge
Thumb Down

Scapegoating ?

Nope I don't see how that applies. It would seem he committed a number of offenses and has been charged.

It is then up to the courts to decide guilt or innocence and assign a penalty.

5
1
Anonymous Coward

wot? 25 years max for 'swapping bytes'?

the maximum sentence could be 25 years, if the report is correct.

seems HARSH for what is no more than 'swapping bytes' on someone elses computer.

how would Bankers and Politicians 'feel' if they faced the same sentences for 'manipulating' markets or playing 'loose' with peoples lives and data?

7
10
Anonymous Coward

Re: wot? 25 years max for 'swapping bytes'?

For crimes like that an adult in Australia would most likely serve them concurrently, putting the maximum at 10 years.

As a minor, if he's found guilty he'll probably get a slap on the wrist with a book of wet tram tickets, and maybe a good behaviour bond.

Swapping bytes? Seriously? So someone who installs malicious code on a system has just "given them surplus bytes"?

6
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: no more than 'swapping bytes' on someone elses computer.

Tell ya what: How about I swap the bytes on your banks computer for your account on payday with the ones my bank has for my account the day before I get paid.

I mean it's only swapping bytes on someone else's computer, so no harm, right?

5
0
Silver badge
Paris Hilton

Re: no more than 'swapping bytes' on someone elses computer.

"Tell ya what: How about I swap the bytes on your banks computer for your account on payday with the ones my bank has for my account the day before I get paid."

I think that was the point and it's already been done (did you miss current events?) with no repercussions for the crooks.

Do try and keep up.

1
4
Silver badge

Kid vandalises shop window.

Gets let off with a caution.

Commit the same crime digitally, and it's up to 25 years in the big house?

Somethings not right here.

7
8
Silver badge

Re: Kid vandalises shop window.

Vandalise a shop window, one shop owner and his clientele are affected until it's fixed.

Vandalise a telco, potentially every customer of the telco is affected until it's fixed.

Scale is very important in crime.

7
0
Bronze badge
Thumb Down

Re: Kid vandalises shop window.

And even with Criminal Damage to a shop window (assuming that the value was over £5000) the penalty could be up to 14 years.

Do the crime and so on ........

2
0
Holmes

Re: Kid vandalises shop window.

Vandalise a shop window, one shop owner and his clientele are affected until it's fixed.

Vandalise a telco, and embarrass the telco for having shit security which embarrasses the executives who outsourced IT security to their brother-in-laws company, every customer of the telco is affected by increased charges and fees as the telco spends more money on advertising and lobbying politicians for greater punishment for people who expose weaknesses in the telco's security.

Meanwhile in order to incentivise staff to work harder the telco imposes a 10% pay cut of staff and outsources half of their jobs to a third world country while executives get more share options for reducing operating costs.

Scale is very important in crime.

9
5
Silver badge

Re: Kid vandalises shop window.

The courts can only deal with offences against the laws which actually exist.

Maybe you should lobby your MP to make businesses putting up prices and outsourcing/offshoring illegal?

3
2
FAIL

Re: Kid vandalises shop window.

"Commit the same crime digitally, and it's up to 25 years in the big house?"

That is what happens when you are considering an (alleged) serial offender, and play the stupid game of assuming the maximum sentence for each offence, and that they'll be served consecutively.

And if you are, at least get it right and multiply by the number of counts:

6 x 10 + 1 x 10 + 1 x 3 + 12 x 2 = 97 years.

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Parramatta area?

That's lucky there's the nearby Parramatta Correctional Centre.

1
0
Thumb Down

Scale?

I think you get 20 years for murder. Sorry to the hardliners above me, but no, he did not commit anything near as bad as murder.

Defacing a website? GET OVER IT.

As Billy Bragg said: "This isn't a court of justice, son, this is a court of law"

6
6
Bronze badge
Stop

Re: Scale?

You are conflating the maximum penalties with which he could be charged, and the penalty he is likely to actually get. assuming he is first off found guilty

The maximum penalty for murder is life, just as the maximum penalties listed in the article is 10 years..... just as a murderer may serve 20 years, assuming that this 'Anon' is found guilty he may not even serve one full sentence of 10 years.

5
0
Silver badge

Re: Scale?

Just because bleeding hearts have undermined sentences for murder doesn't mean we should undermine sentences elsewhere. The correct palliative is to correct the sentence for murder.

3
0
Big Brother

Law is for the poor

but rupert & james murdoch, both found to be lying about their role & knowledge of mass illegal computer hacking across the globe are walking around free?

5
3
Silver badge

Re: Law is for the poor

I know peope who hack computers, should I be in jail just for knowing they do that?

Knowledge of a crime another person commits isn't the same as committing the crime yourself.

1
2
Silver badge

Re: I know peope who hack computers,

Legally you could be thrown in jail if they found out and were able to prove it. Optional choices for the prosecutor are:

Accomplice after the fact

aiding and abetting

obstructing justice

6
0
Silver badge

Re: Law is for the poor

If you employed the person, paid them to do the hacking as part of their job and profited from the proceeds - yes

1
0
Holmes

Re: Law is for the poor

Crime bosses tend to avoid leaving evidence of their instructions, or just employ people who when given high-level instructions to do something, accomplish it by the cheapest, i.e illegal means. They wouldn't be billionaires if their responsibility could be proven easily, would they?

2
1
Silver badge

Re: I know peope who hack computers,

I can't be an accomplice after the fact to a crime that I didn't know was being committed, never had any part in making possible, and didn't receive any benefit from when I found out (after the fact) it had been committed.

That's how come the music/film industry mafia can't have entire families thrown into jail for Piracy.

Obstruction of Justice would require the justice system to make enquiries of me about any knowledge I had of the crime, and my experience of the authorities in this country tells me they're not interested in what I know about a crime. They prefer it when victims of crime just STFU, and let the criminals get on with it... and yes I do have personal experience which has allowed me to reach that conclusion.

Nice try with the FUD though.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: I know peope who hack computers,

[quote]

I can't be an accomplice after the fact to a crime that I didn't know was being committed, never had any part in making possible, and didn't receive any benefit from when I found out (after the fact) it had been committed.

[/quote]

so you are an (admitted) accomplice after the fact... if doesn't matter if you benefited or not... you found about about the action after it was committed... if you didn't report it, then the law in many places does see you as an accomplice after the fact and can prosecute you...

consider if you know someone who has stolen credit cards and you know they have them... if you don't report that person, then you are an accomplice whether you do anything or not... if you knew they were getting the cards, then you are an accomplice... if you only found out after they got them, then you are an accomplice after the fact... you only real protection is to notify the authorities... in some places, not notifying the authorities about something you know to be illegal is also a crime and can result in prosecution...

YMMV depending on where you are located and possibly even your status (student visa, work visa, tourist) in that place...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Another one bites the dust

Eventually as hundreds more A$$nonymous members are arrested and sent to prison, they will come to understand that they are not above the law and that they are just A$$holes in deep denial for which they will be punished for their hacking and DDoS attacks.

4
1
Silver badge

Re: Another one bites the dust

Can I have some of your koolaide?

There have been many events blamed on Anon that were in fact, not committed by them. The Sony fiasco come to mind, for one.

They have become a handy scapegoat for overpaid incompetence.

2
3
Silver badge
Childcatcher

Re: Another one bites the dust

>"Eventually as hundreds more A$$nonymous members are arrested and sent to prison, they will come to understand that they are not above the law and that they are just A$$holes in deep denial for which they will be punished for their hacking and DDoS attacks."

They will also begin to realize that their hierarchy consists of people that will rat you out to the cops at the first sign of pressure, and that will load you up with crap hacker tools that broadcast your IP address to the legal authorities.

4
1
Anonymous Coward

Hopefully

Hopefully Australia will properly punish this criminal unlike Blighty who doesn't even slap digital criminals on the wrist after conviction.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

"The statement also says the youth's home was searched in November 2012..."

Seems like the Australian Federal Police are getting better at processing Komputa Krimes. What used to take them several years they've now got down to ~5 months.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Scale of crime

Whilst i partially agree with the comments around "do the crime, do the time' approach i do believe that there is still very much a scale issue here that the law does not address properly.

Allow me to explain. With a number of associated crimes over the years there are degrees of scale, ones that spring to mind are physical assault which in Australia like so many other countries have a scale to them, assault & battery, grievous bodily harm etc all the way up to murder, (and in fact murder has degrees of scale as well) but whilst digital crimes have a very limited scale I do not believe it goes far enough.

whilst this kid may have been involved in the hacking of a system that released passwords of thousands of users is it correct that the punishment fits the crime, I don't believe it does looking at the possible max sentences possible (yes i do appreciate that he may not receive the maximum but it is possible that he will). I don't know what the answer but i do feel the legal system here and elsewhere in the world is lagging behind immensely in this area.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Scale of crime

"The legal system" in Australia is still developing, when it comes to dealing computer/technology crimes, historically though, in relation to teenage "computer hackers" specifically, it has been fairly consistant in this regard I think.

Looking back over the past 23 years (make that 23 years and one week pretty much to the day since The Realm guys were raided):

- The AFP / DPP have typically pushed for sentences of incarceration,

- While the Courts have managed to "keep it real" and take into account the degrees of scale, intention, circumstances etc and not sentence so harshly.

Hopefully the Courts will continue to operate as independantly and unbiased to political, media, etc pressure, and sentence sensibly and appropriately after considering all circumstances...

1
0

in NSW laws were passed so that it is almost impossible to send a first to third time offender (juvenile) to gaol. The laws in this area demand overwhelming evidence and circumstances for the magistrate to even consider anything other than a stern warning and a good behaviour bond. This has held true even in cases of violent assault.

I don't necessarily agree with it but that is the law as it stands.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.