Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Oh, absolutely. Of course, that would be 5 years in prison after sentencing. Consider the fact that both Kevin Mitnick and Jeremy Hammond (allegedly) were threatened with the "revolving door" of never having their "final" day in court, spending an indefinite time in jail (as opposed to prison) and in cross-state prison transports.

Now, they were accused of committing crimes directly (hacking/so called computer "fraud") -- so it's not quite the same thing (one would hope).

The chilling thing about these laws, is that they're (allegedly) only used for secret "national security" stuff. So if you go up against that, you aren't that far from being held "in the interest of national security" -- and -- there might be an honest (or seemingly so) appeal to your patriotism thrown in there, for you to actively become an agent of national security (spy on your neighbours for their safety!).

I don't think it is at all clear cut (how can we know how many of these law are even legal, if some of them are secret?).




As an interesting data point though (which works heavily against the government here), a petition for habeas corpus requires that you specify grounds for habeas, and facts supporting the grounds claimed, so as soon as you are arrested if you aren't promptly arraigned, you pretty much must have more details filed in public court.


Yeah, I agree that if you somehow become arrested, rather than unlawfully detained, the game seems to be stacked against the government. Now, in theory, if you're unlawfully detained, the game should also be stacked against the government...


Unlawful detention is exactly what habeas petitions are for. If they arraign you, you can't file one. If they hold you without charges, that's when they come in handy.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: