Journalist Matthew Keys Sentenced To 24-Month Prison Term For Helping Anonymous (theverge.com) 99
An anonymous reader writes: The former Reuters journalist convicted last year for aiding the hacker group Anonymous has been sentenced to 24 months in prison today. Matthew Keys faced up to a possible 25 years for three counts of hacking. Keys will be on supervised release and he is set to surrender on June 15th. In October 2015, Keys was found guilty for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act when he provided website login credentials to The Los Angeles Times, a Tribune Media-owned newspaper. In the past, he's worked for a companion Tribune property, KTXL Fox 40 in Sacramento, California, which gave him possession of the login information to the join content management system. As a result, Anonymous members altered one story on the Los Angeles Times website. He then went to work for Reuters, where he was fired from his position as social media editor after charges were filed in March 2013.
Lucky (Score:4, Informative)
I'm surprised given the general attitude today that he got off so light. It's getting so this kind of thing is treated like terrorism or something similar by the authorities.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah these are just stupid kids who feel too cool to just paint graffiti on a wall, they need to do something "leet".
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it's not like he did something really bad like taking a bunch of JSTOR documents.
Re:Lucky (Score:5, Insightful)
Light? He's going to federal prison for 2 years because he gave someone a password!
If you give someone the key to your neighbor's house (which you have as a trustworthy neighbor) and the guy you give the key to goes inside and takes a shit on their carpet, I don't think you'd be looking at 2 years in prison. But this is "on a computer" so holy shit, better give him federal PMITA prison time... What a crock.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If you give someone the key to your neighbor's house (which you have as a trustworthy neighbor) and the guy you give the key to goes inside and takes a shit on their carpet, I don't think you'd be looking at 2 years in prison.
I think two years sounds about right to being complicit (in other words, an accessory) to what most states would call a home invasion of the third degree, which is a felony. Being complicit carries the same sentence as if you had committed the crime yourself. That could even count as a first degree home invasion since in some states, taking a shit in somebody's house is considered a crime of a sexual nature (in other words, a felony, hence upgrading the charge to first degree) and you'd be looking at much m
Re: (Score:2)
> If you give someone the key to your neighbor's house (which you have as a trustworthy neighbor) and the guy you give the key to goes inside and takes a shit on their carpet, I don't think you'd be looking at 2 years in prison.
The better analogy is "If you give someone who you know is going to take a shit in your neighbors house, the key to said neighbors house, you're not that innocent"
Saying "Oh, I didn't know Anonymous was going to do anything malicious" means you're just an idiot.
Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Disproportionate sentences like this don't enamor people to their government, or to put it another way "unjust laws serve to bring all law into contempt." The United States of Amerika indeed where the slightest act is met with ridiculous punishment. No wonder per capita the land of the free imprisons the most people in the world.
Re:Justice (Score:5, Interesting)
His "crime" was the equivalent of spraying graffiti on a wall - if the conviction was actually true. Two years in PITA for a headline that lasted 40 minutes? Just "because it's done on a computer" does not automatically turn what should be a $100 fine into 730 possible days to be raped.
Re:Justice (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Justice (Score:4, Insightful)
"What if he had.." He didn't. If he did that would have been a different trial.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is that the 1984 law in question is not just. It was written for people stealing proprietary information off of networks and such. Not a simple defacement, and the associated ruining of his entire life for a stupid prank.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, but it wasn't some random internet organization. Keys gave the credentials to an Anon hacker named, "Sharpie". Little did Keys know that Sharpie was actually the infamous Anon hacker, Sabu! Yes, that Sabu, the guy who had become the FBI's informant within Anonymous.
Re: Justice (Score:1)
If only the punishment fitted the fucking crime.
Good luck when we get to the point you are executed for speeding or failing to o yield the right of way.
You deserve the government you are creating.
Re: Justice (Score:1)
The punishment was appropriate by whose measure? Yours? Punnishments are out of proportion to the act committed in the US but are highly correlated with who the victim is. Attack a corporation and you're gonna have a bad time. Steal $10,000 from someone's retirement account and the FBI won't even talk to you.
That is an issue being overlooked here: why was this a federal case in the first place? Negligible damage was done, nobody was hurt--but the group that did the damage is politically opposed to the
Re: (Score:1)
g, he was lucky the damage done was minor but should be punished according to what he did not what he got lucky with.
That's not at all how the law works. If you fire a gun randomly and it happens to hit someone, you will be charged with manslaughter. If you miss, it'll be reckless endangerment. In both cases, the action was identical, the intent was identical, but the outcome was different, leading to wildly different results in how you are charged and punished.
If you fire a gun at someone and miss them,
Re: (Score:2)
He gave out a password, one article got defaced, and he faced a potential 25 years in prison. Seriously. The judge could have fired that one off and it would have counted, no cruel-and-unusual-punishment defense.
"What if he had..." a small harem of 12-year-old girls? He could have gotten fewer than 20 years in prison.
We have a legal system that gives murderers, rapists, and pederasts a very real chance of getting a shorter sentence than a rowdy kid who defaces a Web site--and that's accounting for the
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, not like graffiti at all. In fact more like self cleaning, temporary graffiti, applied over the top of corporate propaganda graffiti and that has no impact beyond exposing security weaknesses. Tried in the court of manufactured public opinion ie tried in main stream media's court by main stream media desperate to maintain the illusion of power. They also failed to prove that 'Anonymous' actually exists beyond being a political activism vehicle. So how did he provide log in credentials to a group that
Re: (Score:1)
no impact beyond exposing security weaknesses
It's a security weakness to give people credentials to access something they're supposed to access? What security protocol do you propose to stop people you want to have access to data from accessing the data while still being able to access the data?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a security weakness to give people credentials to access something they're supposed to access? What security protocol do you propose to stop people you want to have access to data from accessing the data while still being able to access the data?
He was no longer working for the TV station when he shared the password with Anonymous. Either everyone at the company was using the same credentials, or they didn't revoke his personal account when he terminated; poor practice either way.
Re: (Score:2)
To claim someone gave something to someone without having indicated who that someone is, well, what exactly is that but a security weakness. The whole thing stinks of weakness in security of the justice system. The only circumstantial evidence they have, is the claim by the corporation that it occurred. Those who issued the security credentials to him could have done it, they could have done it and digitally fabricated the evidence that those security credentials were used, a corrupt drunk executive could
Re: (Score:1)
The financial markets are fraudulent by nature with all the players hoping they don't get caught in their quest for instant riches. Why should this guy be treated any worse than the regular practitioners? Because it might expose the fraud I suspect. The law deserves no respect while this kind of thing continues.
Re:Justice (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously? The guy turned over credentials to login, far more than just defacing a website could have occurred.
Consider it this way, how would you feel if someone gave the keys to your house to a bunch of kids who went in and spray painted graffiti on the walls of your house? Would you just go 'O that's no big deal, give them a $100 fine & we'll forget about it'...or would you feel EXTREMELY pissed off, violated (someone went in to your house without authorization and COULD have stolen anything) and want some kind of 'justice'? Would 2 years be sufficient jail time for you to get your justice?
There definitely are 'disproportionate sentences' for crimes conducted on a computer versus if not done on a computer...this was not one of them. Learn to distinguish before you share your 'outrage at the government'.
Re:Justice (Score:4, Interesting)
The punishment should fit the crime, his trial should have been based on the actual events and not some nebulous "possibilities." In general, the USA has been leaning more and more to an authoritarian stance. Don't you think that the pendulum should swing back towards the middle a bit? After all, prisons are all sitting at three times capacity now. That's not a problem though. It was a non-violent crime that resulted in a petty defacement and that is what should have been judged.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The actual crime was a defacement, credentials were just the vehicle. The 1984 law itself does not see the distinction between a prank and actual serious intrusions.
Re: (Score:1)
The actual crime was a defacement, credentials were just the vehicle. The 1984 law itself does not see the distinction between a prank and actual serious intrusions.
Wrong again.
https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2013/former-web-producer-indicted-in-california-for-conspiring-with-anonymous-members-to-attack-internet-news-site
Matthew Keys, 26, of Secaucus, New Jersey, was charged in the Eastern District of California with one count each of conspiracy to transmit information to damage a protected computer, transmitting information to damage a protected computer, and attempted transmission of information to damage a protected compute
Re: (Score:2)
"Damaging" a computer? Like he took a sledgehammer to it? Or just changed some information in a content management system? Something that has version control to roll back changes. "Damaging" sounds better in court though I guess - especially when the computer is "protected." Weasel words.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The actual crime was a defacement, credentials were just the vehicle. The 1984 law itself does not see the distinction between a prank and actual serious intrusions.
NO it wasn't. The crime was transmitting the credentials to a 3rd party to allow them into the system. The effect was defacement (a separate crime by those that did that).
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously? The guy turned over credentials to login, far more than just defacing a website could have occurred.
Consider it this way, how would you feel if someone gave the keys to your house to a bunch of kids who went in and spray painted graffiti on the walls of your house? Would you just go 'O that's no big deal, give them a $100 fine & we'll forget about it'...or would you feel EXTREMELY pissed off, violated (someone went in to your house without authorization and COULD have stolen anything) and want some kind of 'justice'? Would 2 years be sufficient jail time for you to get your justice?
There definitely are 'disproportionate sentences' for crimes conducted on a computer versus if not done on a computer...this was not one of them. Learn to distinguish before you share your 'outrage at the government'.
I hope this is a troll. No, I don't have any anger issues which make me want to disproportionately punish people for some nebulous philosophical idea of crime and "justice".
I'd like the kids who wrecked my house charged appropriately by the law and for them to cover any damages. In a perfect world, I'd like the person who gave my key away to pay for changing all the locks on my home. Since he couldn't be trusted with the key, he certainly won't be trusted to have not made a copy.
So long as my home is fix
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, his crime was to provide access to his former employer's cms so that some hacker would go and, using Keys words, "go fuck some shit up". The fact the website was only defaced for 40 minutes is immaterial to Keys actions and intent. In the transcript of the IRC chat, he was disappointed at the extent of the hacker's vandalism.
Re: (Score:2)
And every childish prank has to be met with no mercy.
Justice [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Lock everyone up and throw away the key is the American way.
Re: (Score:2)
Enjoy your police state creep you have going on there. Next thing you know you'll be arrested for climbing a tree or something. No, nothing to see here citizen [seattletimes.com].
Re: (Score:2)
He threw branches, pine cones, and pieces of metal at people below.
Technically, that's probably a battery charge of some sort (laws vary by state) for each person he struck.
Of course he was arrested.
He was also crazy enough that his grandmother got a restraining order against him, so I'd assume there was other disorderly behavior that drew police attention.
Re: (Score:3)
No, his crime was like giving the company keycard to a bunch of vandals. That the anon guys didn't do serious damage is irrelevant, because they could have.
Re: (Score:2)
Trials are supposed to be tried on the basis of actual events. If you start punishing people for potential damages then where does it end? I could have shot someone today, I was in a really pissy mood, should I be facing a potential 25 year stint in the klink?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Illegal access and conspiracy to cause damage to his former employer's network was what he was tried for. If he'd confessed to what he did instead of pleading innocent and trying to make himself out to be a Aaron Schwartz martyr, he would have probably only done 2 months jail with 6 months probation.
Re: (Score:2)
25 years ago, when I was in high school, I hacked the computer network, got access to the administrative account and then changed it - locking out, completely, the actual administrators. The next day I was pulled out of class and brought to the principles office. They said "give us the password and you go back to class and that is the end or we expel you (and then they'd have to format and build the network back up)." I gave them the password and went back to class, end of story. Imagine if that was tod
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't cool at all. I did it because I could, not because I understood the potential consequences. Which is the same case here. But, hey, who cares if a person's life is ruined? Especially over something so fucking petty.
Re: (Score:2)
I did it because I could, not because I understood the potential consequences.
And even today, the school wouldn't have to press charges. It's their decision on whether they want to involve the police at all.
You also could have been tried as a juvenile, as high schoolers are generally under 18. Juvenile records can often be sealed upon reaching adulthood so it doesn't follow you for your entire life. There are mechanisms in place for handling children.
On the other hand, the journalist who is going to jail was a professional who knew there might be consequences and did it anyway.
I have
Re: (Score:2)
Trials are supposed to be tried on the basis of actual events. If you start punishing people for potential damages then where does it end?
No, it's always been this way. Actual harm, degree of negligence, danger to others, and intent are all considered in sentencing.
Where I live, drunk drivers automatically get their licenses suspended for 3 years on top of fines and jail time. Even if no one was hurt. Even if there was no accident.
There was no harm and arguably little intent for a particular drunk driver, but the negligence and danger are serious enough.
In this case, the vandals likely could have done much worse with his credentials. The fact
Re: (Score:3)
That depends on whose version of the incident response costs is true.
The defense as I understand it says it was a matter of clicking revert and took less time than scrubbing out graffiti.
The prosecution claims the cost to the victim was 333 hours. On the other hand they included some response work to different incidents for which he had not been on trial.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand they included some response work to different incidents for which he had not been on trial.
If there are other incidents or questionable activity on the network, you have to investigate whether they might be related. Investigating a one-off event is simple---usually you can ask someone if he meant to do it and why, and from there it's not hard to determine whether the activity was authorized.
As you add more actions and more assets to the list, the complexity of reviewing them grows rapidly.
Maybe this was a one-click restore, but if there were other things going on then their IT staff should assume
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
His "crime" was the equivalent of spraying graffiti on a wall
His crime was worse than that.
He gave unknown people with nefarious intentions access to the system. He couldn't know with certainty what they were going to do with it.
Maybe they pinky-promised him that they would only post an article or two. But he actually gave them access to do everything he could do. That's how credentials work. He's lucky they only did one stupid thing.
His behavior was grossly negligent and intentional. If we can give a drunk driver fines, jail, and a 10-year suspended license without
Re: Justice (Score:1)
"Malicious". Ooooh spooooooky language I'm soooo frightened now.
Since the cost to repair the " damage" is nonexistent I would say job loss would be punishment enough.
If you disagree I hope the next time you are caught speeding you are sent away for 10 years as that is more dangerous and potentially fatal than this could ever be.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Disproportionate sentences like this don't enamor people to their government, or to put it another way "unjust laws serve to bring all law into contempt." The United States of Amerika indeed where the slightest act is met with ridiculous punishment. No wonder per capita the land of the free imprisons the most people in the world.
2 years is the minimum sentence for a CFAA conviction. The judge was as lenient as he/she could be.
What a putz (Score:1)
Keys writes
"I am innocent, and I did not ask for this fight. Nonetheless, I hope that our combined efforts help bring about positive change to rules and regulations that govern our online conduct. As I’ve previously wrote about, nobody should face terrorism charges for passing a Netflix username and password. But under today’s law, prosecutors can use their discretion to bring those exact charges against people — including journalists — whenever they see fit. Prosecutors did so in th
Old credentials (Score:3, Interesting)
Is the summery correct that were old cred to a place he used to work at? If so the times has nobody to blame but themselves.
Boston Carjacking Unravels .. (Score:1)
This may have something to do with the Matthew Keys show trial.
Boston Carjacking Unravels [whowhatwhy.org]
Journalist Matthew Keys says he didn’t do it (Score:3, Insightful)
Ars Technica Coverage. (Score:3)
''When this court tries to make sense of what Mr. Keys did for a limited period of time, it was out of pique, it was out of anger at his former employer,'' US District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller said at the conclusion of the hours-long hearing.
''He arrogated to himself the decision to affect the content of a journalistic publication. In practical effect, at least with respect to the Los Angeles Times webpage, the effect was relatively modest and did not do much to actually damage the reputation of that publication. But the intent was to wreak further damage which could have had further consequences.''
As Ars reported earlier, Keys was accused of handing over a username and password for former employer KTXL Fox 40's content management system (CMS) to members of Anonymous and instructing people there to ''fuck some shit up.''
[The prosecutor] in his final statement to the judge, lambasted Keys, pointing directly at him several times.
''This is a person, for whom his own aggrandizement, is willing to attack any institution that threatens him: the press, broadcast media, print media, law enforcement, the jury system,'' he said. ''This wasn't mischief, this was a rage driven by profound narcissism.''
Journalist sentenced to 24 months in prison after hacking-related conviction [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
something he was authorized to do. In fact it was his job.
Not after he was let go from the company.
It's incredibly easy to remove or restrict a login account that has any kind of password. It is *universal* policy to do this when employees should no longer have access to specific accounts. Were I a judge I think I'd have to at least consider whether KTXL made a good faith effort to secure their system, and whether that lack of effort should mitigate the punishment handed down. When consent can clearly, easily, and unequivocably be retracted does the fact that said consent wasn't retracted imply consen
In Russia (Score:2, Insightful)
If this occurred in Russia, the US press would be full of outrage at a "journalist" being railroaded.
Calls would be made for Amnesty to investigate and Obama would call for a new range of sanctions to be imposed.
Instead, he'll just add to the already huge prison population of a country with over a quarter of the PLANET's population that are housed in cages.
Fancy being jailed for giving someone what should have been EXPIRED passwords.
Like giving your kids keys from old rentals and finding that they gave them
too late (Score:2)
Unfortunately, this series of words lost all meaning years ago and doesn't tell me if anything really happened.
I'll let the flame wars decide if something did, I'm just here to mock those seven.
Do as we say, not as we do... (Score:1)