Guy who hacked Scarlett Johansson's nude pics could face 121 years in jail

Might as well sentence him to death. 121 years for nude pictures of girls... I mean seriously?xdude85

No, not for nude pictures of girls, but for hacking and violation of privacy.

This is just way too much, i mean sure "defaming value" but i mean really

thats harsh, killers dont even get sentences this long sometimes.

Damn, he should have just became a pro athlete, got drunk, go for a drive and kill someone. They would have only received 30 days in jail for that.

I'm fine with making an example of the guy. People like that are scum.MrGeezer

[QUOTE="xdude85"]Might as well sentence him to death. 121 years for nude pictures of girls... I mean seriously?worlock77

No, not for nude pictures of girls, but for hacking and violation of privacy.

He isn't going to get 121 years in prison. That is simply what he could get, in theory, if he's found guilty of all charges and his sentences is carried out consecutively. Chances are whatever sentence he gets for each charge will be carried out concurrently. He'll probably spend less than a decade behind bars (assuming he's found guilty).

And yet rapists and murderers can get only 25 years.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]I'm fine with making an example of the guy. People like that are scum.Tykain

How about some probation. :| Seriously, let's wake the hell up. The guy didn't kill, rape, or directly injure anyone. He violated someone's privacy pretty severely and should be held responsible, but this is not like dealing drugs or mugging old ladies. Elraptor

I would agree that some jail time is necessary. Perhaps 2-3 years, certainly not 121.

Its because the clown hacked more then 50 of them. But in reality, he probably wont serve a tenth of that sentence.

Nude pics = 121 years.

Baby killing = No imprisonment.

Fightingfan

Are people just not getting that this isn't a matter of nude pictures?

Are people just not getting that this isn't a matter of nude pictures?

worlock77

Yes, thanks for your concern.

I'm fine with making an example of the guy. People like that are scum.MrGeezer

Huh, are you serious? A person who hacks into someone's private files for amusement is scum?

Are people just not getting that this isn't a matter of nude pictures?

worlock77

I think they get it but still don't care because

1. They feel he's only being charged so harshly because he hacked a celebrity and not some average Jane you see behind the McDonald's counter,

2. They fail to realise that he hasn't even been tried yet and are comparing his proposed possible sentence to people who were accused of murder and already had their day in court, and

3. In most straight guy's opinions he did a great service to all of mankind releasing nude photos of Scarlett (even though they were blurry and only left most viewers wanting more).

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

That's longer than the sentences of a lot of murderers. I can understand maybe a few years, but 121 years is a bit much.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]I'm fine with making an example of the guy. People like that are scum.iHarlequin

Huh, are you serious? A person who hacks into someone's private files for amusement is scum?

I would say so, yeah. Complete invasion of privacy.

That's longer than the sentences of a lot of murderers. I can understand maybe a few years, but 121 years is a bit much.

soulless4now

To repeat:

He isn't going to get 121 years in prison. That is simply what he could get, in theory, if he's found guilty of all charges and his sentences are carried out consecutively. Chances are whatever sentence he gets for each charge will be carried out concurrently. He'll probably spend less than a decade behind bars (assuming he's found guilty).

I saw this and I laughed;

ONLY IN THE US

Just the fact people are saying 5 or 10 years would be enough shows how stupid the world is.
If you even been to prison you would know even 1 year in such a **** is a lifetime, you acnt even image what is would feel like just to lose years, something you can never get back!

Give the lad 80h community service, it are just nude pictures + 80 hours for hacking and be done with it.

lol i'm gonna laugh so hard if he gets that. If she wasn't a celebrity, he prob would barely get any kind of punishment.

Nude pics = 121 years.

Baby killing = No imprisonment.

Fightingfan

make a famous person sad and your life is forfeit, scam million/billions from the population with fraudulent claims and get 5-20....

lol i'm gonna laugh so hard if he gets that. If she wasn't a celebrity, he prob would barely get any kind of punishment.

Morphic

I dont thinks its funny if he get puts in prison for longer than 6 months for this, it is a mans life we are talking about that goes completly wasted.

Nude pics = 121 years.

Baby killing = No imprisonment.

Fightingfan

Last I checked killing an infant was considered murder.

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

I'm fine with making an example of the guy. People like that are scum.MrGeezer

Huh, are you serious? A person who hacks into someone's private files for amusement is scum?

I would say so, yeah. Complete invasion of privacy.

[QUOTE="Morphic"]

lol i'm gonna laugh so hard if he gets that. If she wasn't a celebrity, he prob would barely get any kind of punishment.

BlackHawk340

I dont thinks its funny if he get puts in prison for longer than 6 months for this, it is a mans life we are talking about that goes completly wasted.

Those maximum sentences almost never apply. He'll probably get a very small fraction of that, or get off with time served and probation.

It's the celeb's fault that she took nude pics of herself.Oil_rope_bombs

The justice system baffles me. Always has done, always will.

Ilovegames1992

Yet when the government does it, it's for the people's protection. Therefore okay. It all comes down to the reasons.BranKetra

Well I can't say I'm too big on the government doing it either.

[QUOTE="Oil_rope_bombs"] It's the celeb's fault that she took nude pics of herself.MushroomWig

You gotta admit, any celeb who still keeps nude pictures of themselves on their phone is pretty stupid/naive.

Should be a few years, not THAT much. It's the celeb's fault that she took nude pics of herself.Oil_rope_bombs

So if I were to, say walk up to the window in your house and take pictures of you nude, then spread them across the internet, it'd be your fault for being nude? Good to know.

[QUOTE="Oil_rope_bombs"] It's the celeb's fault that she took nude pics of herself.MushroomWig

What really baffles me is why does she have nude pictures of herself anyway?GazaAli

What really baffles me is why does she have nude pictures of herself anyway?GazaAli

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"][QUOTE="Oil_rope_bombs"] It's the celeb's fault that she took nude pics of herself.surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]What really baffles me is why does she have nude pictures of herself anyway?MushroomWig

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"] So people shouldn't be allowed to take pictures of themselves in private now?dagreenfish

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"][QUOTE="GazaAli"]What really baffles me is why does she have nude pictures of herself anyway?surrealnumber5

I'm still wondering why she was pulling the facial expressions she did in those pictures.

[QUOTE="dagreenfish"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] sure they can, but once the picture is made and put into digital format it is only a matter of time till it gets out. there is no untrue harm done to her vie their release, the pictures are of her , not mockups. there was no slander, there was no theft, at best there is some invasion of privicy, but that should come with a minor fine at best.

surrealnumber5

I'm still wondering why she was pulling the facial expressions she did in those pictures.

The_Gaming_Baby