Former Reuters Media Editor Found Guilty of Helping Anonymous Hack Into LA Times (twitchy.com) 36
An anonymous reader writes: Prolific tweeter and former Reuters social media editor Matthew Keys, charged with computer hacking under the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act, was found guilty today on all counts and faces up to 25 years in prison when sentenced in January. Wired reports: "According to authorities, during a recorded FBI interview with Keys in October 2012 at his home, prior to his indictment, he admitted to his involvement in the hacking of the L.A. Times, and to sending a series of disparaging, sometimes threatening e-mails to a former employer. Keys waived his Miranda rights at the time of the interview and was concerned that the case not be publicized, apparently believing he might get off as a cooperating witness."
Seems appropriate (Score:4, Insightful)
They guy admitted to breaking the law...
In other news, a guy goes to jail after admitting to B&E...
Re: (Score:1)
25 years is disproportionate punishment to the crime though
Re: (Score:2)
It's unlikely he'll serve that much time.
But the punishment might be appropriate, depending on how much it cost the company to recover from the hack. Typically something like that ends up costing the victim tens of thousands of dollars; it's the same as if he stole that much money or torched someone's car.
Re: (Score:1)
So how much did the banksters and politicians cost the citizens over their past few decades of rampant theft? Seems like they should be going away for a few millennia each.
what a maroon (Score:1)
He snitched on himself. And got what he deserved.
Re: (Score:1)
He'll probably be marooned in jail soon enough.
Re: (Score:3)
i think you misspelled macaroon.
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo
How many times does it have to be said? (Score:2, Informative)
He is right. Mods are wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, if you really did something bad, it needs to be addressed.
No, the system cannot be counted on to address it proportionally or responsibly.
No, you should not ever, and I mean ever, freely converse about anything within the context of our (note USA-centric presumption) current legal system. A lawyer should do that. You can make your situation much, much worse in very short order with as little as one "yes" or "no." Worse in a context where "worse" can be far more severe than anything that was actually appropriate.
Confine your responses to politely agreeable responses to specific commands for compliance WRT your custody from the officers. Anything else: "That will have to be addressed to my lawyer, sir." First thing -- and the only thing -- you really need to say, politely, contextually, WRT to any accusations or charges, is "Lawyer."
When they say, as they almost certainly will, that your compliance with them may ease your penalties, you say "Thank you, I understand that, and will convey that to my lawyer as soon as possible." Nothing else. Nothing. Until you do, in fact, discuss it with your lawyer.
"faces up to 25 years in prison" - Nah. (Score:4, Insightful)
Bad Reporting on Matthew Keys' Possible Sentence Conceals Prosecutorial Power [popehat.com]
TLDR: In almost all cases, definitely including this one, the maximum possible sentence is entirely irrelevant to the sentence that will be actually imposed.
Re: (Score:2)
Good to see another Popehat fan. As soon as I saw the article I looked for the "faces up to 25 years" and was going to post the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for giving some deeper insight into this story. The real headline is not what the Reuters guy did, but how out-of-control the federal prosecutors have become.
At worst, what this guy did was vandalism.
Re: (Score:3)
Harassment?
and to sending a series of disparaging, sometimes threatening e-mails to a former employer.
Re: (Score:1)
Keys is a SJW. I wonder how long his support would last if the person that received those threats happens to be a woman? And given that Keys supposedly had an in with Anonymous (he was a source both for a Gawker Anonymous article and a book about Anonymous by a Forbes writer), what other shit did he manage to get Anonymous to do for him?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for giving some deeper insight into this story. The real headline is not what the Reuters guy did, but how out-of-control the federal prosecutors have become.
At worst, what this guy did was vandalism.
If you break into some place in order to vandalize it, expect to be sentenced the same as any burglar. If you want to be sentenced as a vandal, vandalize something you can reach from the sidewalk.
That said, I'm not convinced the true damages were over the $5000 needed to be federal. In my State I would expect a class C felony though. Except that local prosecutors would be scared to charge a media guy.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Why (Score:4, Informative)
Rule #1: Cops are allowed to lie, unless they are under oath (and they'll still often lie, then, too).
Rule #2: Asking for an attorney does not mean they have to stop asking you questions.
Rule #3: Invoking your right to remain silent does mean they have to stop asking you questions.
Pretty much screwed ... (Score:2)
And, really, if that was his attitude, he gets no sympathy.
In terms of the definition of "computer fraud and abuse", that's pretty much it.
Of course, the problem is you could do a LOT of non-digital crimes and do a LOT less time, which makes me ask if these prison sentences are even sane.
Hell, you could probably intentionally run down someone with your car and do less prison time.
protip (Score:5, Insightful)
What? (Score:2)
I think that means "he would rather that the case not be publicized but was worried it would be" and not "he was worried because he didn't think the case would be publicized and he thought it ought to be", but i'm not entirely sure.
Never talk to the police (Score:5, Informative)
And this is why you never talk to cops without a lawyer present. Ever.
Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, it is not the chicken or the egg so much as it is the fowl and the hard-shelled organic vessel where an embryo develops.