Hacker News Reader

Comment by friendly_chap | Hacker News Reader

Welcome to the New World Order where they can throw you into prison at will with supposed evidence which truth content can be hard to verify even by experts.

We geeks are especially at risk. ("Look at that github profile, he even has the codes, hacker, hacker! Burn!")

Doesn't it make for a warm feeling in the tummy to know that you can spend the rest of your life being the best friend of Jammal, sharing a cell and a bed with him, without doing something illegal?

Fortunately we developers are hard asses who are used to murder, rape, and robbery. Oh wait...

View on HN

> Welcome to the New World Order where they can throw you into prison at will with supposed evidence which truth content can be hard to verify even by experts.

The article was really brief and vague. Are you sure this is the case?

From what I understand, the title is not completely descriptive: the kid has a maximum possible sentence of 10 years if he is convicted.

"The suspected hacker faces a maximum of 10 years jail time if convicted and will face court again on May 17."

I obviously have no way of really knowing what exactly happened without more information, but just assuming that random programmers are at risk for getting arrested is a bit of a stretch -- even if there is a "New World Order" as you say, it needs good programmers too...

It will be interesting to see what actually happens at the end of this, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a sentence to community service and parole for some time.

As I see it there is an ongoing propaganda to brainwash the masses about how hacking is a sin against life, and how we should routinely handle out prison sentences for it, so they can ruin the life of anybody at will, without consequences.

Especially, nowadays, when tech savvy people has more ways to spread rebellious views than the general population, this is a good control mechanism for those in power.

You are saying the same thing the person you are criticising is.

He said "can throw you in prison for 10 years" You say "maximum possible sentence of 10 years"

Exact same thing.

Be in the accused's position, and then argue the difference.

Maybe this is a bit of a misunderstanding? I wasn't refuting the "10 years" -- that's a fact. I was simply pointing out that you can't really know what's going to happen based on 10 sentences of extremely vague details in an article.

I was refuting this:

> Welcome to the New World Order where they can throw you into prison at will with supposed evidence which truth content can be hard to verify even by experts.

That statement assumes that he will be convicted and the judge will deliver a severe sentence, which is not necessarily a valid assumption since there's barely any information provided. It's possible he may simple get a community service sentence with parole, since he is 17.

And yes, the government "can" throw you in jail if you are found guilty and if the judge decides to, but neither of those "if's" have been decided yet.

>Welcome to the New World Order where they can throw you into prison at will with supposed evidence which truth content can be hard to verify even by experts.

Emm, how is this different than the "Old World Order"? I mean, then, they could put you in prison at will, period (the king, the local sheriff, the lynching mob, etc). They didn't even need any evidence to be verified.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com