'"Chris has been very cooperative with prosecutors, he's remorseful for any of the harm caused to the stars, and just looks to a resolution of the case," defence attorney Christopher Chestnut told the news agency.'
Not that old chestnut again...
A Florida man has admitted hacking into the email accounts of celebrities including Mila Kunis and Scarlett Johansson. Christopher Chaney, 35, of Jacksonville, Florida, agreed on Monday to plead guilty to nine felony charges including computer hacking and wiretapping, AP reports. The plea follows Chaney's arrest in October …
He's quite remorseful....
remoreseful he got cought.
He either lacks the ability to judge right from wrong, or knew DAMN well what he was doing was wrong and just didn't care. If it's the first then he is a danger to socity (and needs removed from it for the protection of all). If its the second, he needs the full force of the law brought to bare.
I'm really tired of hearing how people are "sorry" for a multi-year pattern of behavior.
I'm still a bit puzzled by what "harm he caused the stars," exactly. I mean, inconvenience, certainly, but "harm"? I find it odd that he's potentially facing a 100-year sentence (at least according to the news reports I've read), whereas the bloke who killed Michael Jackson got, what, 4? Does seem odd to me that filching someone's cell phone pics is, in the eyes the law, more harmful than killing them. How else can we explain the discrepancy in maximum jail terms?
Your average lawyer or judge really doesn't understand tech very well. The result is any crime involving technology automatically acts as a multiplier for sentencing:
- USA cheque / credit fraud -vs- wire fraud,
- MPs £30,000 expenses fraud = 16 months imprisonment -vs- chav's unsuccessful "let's riot" post on Facebook = 4 years imprisonment
Add to that the unnecessarily punative headline-seeking behaviour of prosecutors in the USA, and you have obscenely long sentences.
The court could order naked pictures of him to be posted on the internet and to all his email contacts.
If necessary, penis ensmallment (what is the opposite of 'enlargement'?), belly enlargement and addition of zits should be performed using the new Photoshop.
Or alter photos to make him look sexy and distribute these amongst his future cell block co-habitees.
Sorry, it's a Friday.
Using publically available info to access someone's e-mail is hardly hacking.
Especially when you then forward all the persons e-mails onto yourself.
It hardly the most sophisticated of attacks and hardly the most ingenuous of computer criminals.
How it took the police nearly a year to track this gut down is beyond me.
It's certainly not a very hard exploit but it's still obtaining unauthorized access to an electronic service and would be subject to the same penalties.
Some of the blame should go to the service provider for asking really stupid security questions. While it's possible some savvy person mightn't truthfully answer "whats your mother's maiden name?" the reality is that the vast majority of people would. As such it's crap security, particularly when the answer is easily discoverable.
dead right dr.
the maiden name as a means of security is as outdated and useless as the "signature" we had until recent indroduction of chip 'n pin
I can scarecely believe that until a couple of years ago the security of your money rested on you being the only one able to reproduce the vague squiggle on the back of your bank card - that was there for the thief to practice before hand.
Christ its like like a sentry saying "your password is 'bacon' , can you say 'bacon' "?
In spite of this your signature is widely held to show that you authenticated or agreed to something.
Its fucking stone-age!
If my spouse, or anyone of my acquaintance for that matter, emailed me nude pictures of herself, I might or might not be titillated, depending on who it was.
But I'd think it suggested a weird personality trait in the sender. Low self-esteem? Too much self-esteem? I'm not sure, but definitely something odd.
I don't think I'm being prudish. I'm just slightly disturbed by the motivation behind the email. Think about the process behind it -getting nude shots taken (or taking them yourself), thinking "what this message really lacks is a picture of my privates", hunting one down and attaching it.
How different from the life of our own dear Queen!
I agree in a way. I would have thought even the dumbest celbretard would have heard of hacked emails by now. Everyone should be aware that if you aren't ready to publish something on the web you shouldn't put it on a computer (those without access to a tame security consultant anyway).
Surely anyone who can earn big bucks posing for lad mags would know that naked (or semi-naked) pictures of them might be worth somebody's time to get hold of.
Given her high profile status being an actress, it seems to me that nude images of her self would of been of interest to the media and individuals like the one being prosecuted. Leaving said pictures on her email account is entering them into the public domanin as far as I'm concerned as neather the media or individuals like the one being prosecuted have any morality and so hacking an email account means nothing untill they are prosecuted!
The man found himself in possession of nude pictures of fine Scarlett. Any man who finds himself in that position is morally obligated to share this bounty with his fellow men, the online brotherhood of porn oglers. He discharged his duty honorably, and should be celebrated as the hero and martyr that he is.
Let's stand up a fund to keep him in snacks while he's away.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019