TJX Hacker Claims US Authorized His Crimes 159
doperative writes "Convicted hacker Albert Gonzalez is asking a federal judge to throw out his earlier guilty pleas and lift his record-breaking 20-year prison sentence, on allegations that the government authorized his years-long crime spree. From the article: 'The government has acknowledged that Gonzalez was a key undercover Secret Service informant at the time of the breaches. Now, in a March 24 habeas corpus petition filed in the US District Court in Massachusetts, Gonzalez asserts that the Secret Service authorized him to commit the crimes. “I still believe that I was acting on behalf of the United States Secret Service and that I was authorized and directed to engage in the conduct I committed as part of my assignment to gather intelligence and seek out international cyber criminals,” he wrote. “I now know and understand that I have been used as a scapegoat to cover someone’s mistakes.”'"
It's illegal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's illegal... (Score:4, Informative)
Yes but perhaps his sentence will be taken into consideration considering these new facts (if they are true). That is why these sentences have a range of penalties...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes but perhaps his sentence will be taken into consideration considering these new facts (if they are true). That is why these sentences have a range of penalties...
Seems like government agents breaking laws like these (theft and fraud) should be subject to harsher penalties. Something's seriously wrong if they get lighter ones.
Re:It's illegal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like government agents breaking laws like these (theft and fraud) should be subject to harsher penalties to the people who ordered them.
Re: (Score:3)
If we make it a matter of a soldier (cyber or otherwise) going "Well if you want to take that risk, sir" rather than "Fuck you, sir" - it makes it that much easier for the government to be corrupt.
Keep in mind that those people who casually order you to commit crimes, may also casually order other people to commit crimes against you. I would certainly take this into account when dealing out sentences.
Re: (Score:2)
Post-Nuremburg trials, it's been a staple of basic training in just about every professional army in the world that soldiers are made aware of the fact that their obligation is to the state, not the government, and if the government (or chain of command) issues an illegal order, their legal (and moral) obligation is to refuse. It was certainly part of my training with the Canadian military.
Re: (Score:2)
True, you're not supposed to follow illegal orders....but you better be damn right about it. Because either way, you're going to a court martial or summary court martial for insubordination.
Re: (Score:2)
I know that in my army training there was a difference between a "regular" illegal order and a superior order [wikipedia.org] (which is what is meant when we talk about the Nuremburg defense).
A "regular" illegal order is something which, while illegal, does not cause irreversible harm to others. A superior order is meant in context of an order that can cause such harm; it carries a "moral red flag" (as we called it) with it.
A soldier who is given a "regular" illegal order (e.g. steal a song) should inform his commander tha
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... but are we sure he was working for the Secret Service [wikimedia.org]? Seems a bit far-fetched that the agency tasked with protecting the life of the president would involve itself in something as pedantic as computer hacking in order to catch a few embezzlers....[
And yes, you're right about the distinction between a regular order and a "superior order", but the nomenclature is different in different parts of the world. In Canada, if my superior asks me to do something that's illegal, and I explain that it's illegal
Re: (Score:2)
Secret Service also investigates counterfeit currency as well as certain computer crimes as authorized in United States Code, Title 18, Section 1029.
Re:It's illegal... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like government agents breaking laws like these (theft and fraud) should be subject to harsher penalties. Something's seriously wrong if they get lighter ones.
So, you're saying that narcs should get jail time for buying illegal drugs, in order to catch dealers "in the act"?
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, they should. You cant break the law and then fine/jail people for breaking the very same law.
Re: (Score:3)
A resounding YES. Undercover cops buying drugs is not quite entrapment, but IMO they're just exploiting a loophole so it may as well be. The war on drugs is a farce anyhow.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the mantras of law enforcement is "sometimes you have to break the law to enforce the law." An example is speeding to catch drivers evading arrest.
That's just silly. Speed laws frequently have exceptions built in for law enforcement and emergency services. Ambulances, for example, may be allowed to exceed the speed limit by 10 mph when circumstances warrant provided they have lights and sirens on and follow certain other requirements. There's no law-breaking involved because the law specifically allows for that.
I imagine similar exceptions have long been carved out for police attempting to enforce laws, catch speeders, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, admittedly that was a bad example. But if this guy's story is true, and he was told to break this particular law to "fit in" with this particular group of criminals...well, certainly we can see the parallels. Maybe a better example is the "speeding to catch a speeder" that another poster hit upon, since it's obvious that drugs laws are a bit of a hot button issue :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Possibly he has accomplices in Government who should also be behind bars but I don't see how that undermines his own conviction.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:It's illegal... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
CO in this case would be commanding officer...
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
How about case officer?
Carbon Monoxide? CO made him do it.
Re: (Score:2)
The best I have for CO in this context is "Case Officer", but, like the GP ... not sure that is the term used by the parties here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless he has documented proof that he was receiving these directions (e-mails, recorded conversations (legally recorded or not), etc.) I think his status declines from "government agent" to "sucker."
Re: (Score:1)
It is called the Nuremberg defense because it was invoked there, not because it was successful. In fact the the key thing to remember about the Nuremberg defense is that those using it was found guilty anyway, and sentenced to death.
Re: (Score:3)
From what I can tell, Nuremberg is the only instance where this defense didn't work.
(only very slightly sarcastic here)
Re: (Score:3)
He may well have a duress defense if he was blackmailed into it with threats of a bigger sentence.
Re: (Score:3)
it was declared invalid then and should be declared invalid now
Right, because torturing and murdering thousands* of people is completely the same thing as what this guy did.
Now I'm not saying that this guy should get off scot-free (I don't have enough evidence to say one way or the other), only that you are a moron.
*Yes, the overall deathtoll was in the millions, but I'm being generous and guessing that any one individual person was only involved with enough people to number in the thousands.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because torturing and murdering thousands* of people is completely the same thing as what this guy did.
This is clearly implying that the seriousness of the crime has any bearing on whether the person is guilty or innocent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At best, he's asserting that the circumstances of the crime have an effect on whether the person is guilty of the crime he is charged with (something the law explicitly recognizes) and that the circumstances of the crime have an effect on the sentencing once found guilty (something the law explicitly recognizes). So, what's
Re: (Score:2)
You are saying that the seriousness of the crime should have a bearing on whether the person is guilty or innocent.
Obvious troll is obvious. I have stated plenty of times that that is not what I am saying, but what the hell, I'll try once more.
I am saying that the seriousness of an accusation should have bearing on if certain defenses can vindicate a person who is already guilty of performing whatever act they have been accused of, not if they should be found guilty in the first place. To bring out the current bogeyman, someone accused of child pornography-related crimes should not automatically be found guilty, the
Re:It's illegal... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be very doubtful unless he has good proof he was working for the government.
the government can do a lot of things and authorize it's agents to do a lot of things which would be illegal otherwise.
For a trivial example:The executioner is not guilty of murder for executing a person sentenced to death.
Police can take someone against their will and lock them up overnight for very flimsy reasons without the same penalties as a kidnapper who does the same thing for the same reasons.(Just try locking up your neighbor in your basement against his will to punish him for being drunk in public and see how it turns out for you)
If someone believes their actions are at the behest of their government it shouldn't be a total defense but intent is important.
Re:It's illegal... (Score:4, Interesting)
According to the article, the government has already admitted that he (Gonzalez) worked for them.
The strange thing about this is that Gonzalez signed a plea bargain and is now trying to break it. I'm not clear on all the details. Maybe it was one of those situations where someone in the government told him: "Plead guilty and we'll get you a suspended sentence and then you can continue to work for us" but then the judge, not wanting to appear weak on a "cyber" criminal, dropped the 20-bomb on him. That's a long bit for a young nerd to do, even someone who played with Russian mobsters.
Again, I'm not clear on the details, but I could see the government playing with a guy's life like that, especially someone who was already breaking the law when he first got involved with the Feds.
Re:It's illegal... (Score:4, Insightful)
actually the break goes the other way if he was promised a suspended sentence and the Judge gave him a "couple dimes" then the state broke the agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good point. Either way, it looks like he really was doing work for the Secret Service, who told him they'd look the other way and "don't get caught". But he got caught.
If the Secret Service hadn't gotten their mitts on him in the first place, he'd still be boosting credit card numbers. It's not like I don't think he should be in jail, just that
Re: (Score:2)
No, the prosecutor and judge are from separate branches of the government. Separation of powers means the "government" wasn't making a deal, the administrative branch was. By custom, judges seldom impose a sentence longer than the prosecutors recommends. Any deal would be to have the prosecutor recommend a particular sentence. The judge can accept or reject that recommendation.
Re:It's illegal... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be very doubtful unless he has good proof he was working for the government.
Uhm.. the government ALREADY ADMITTED that they were using him as an undercover informant.
One of those things about the word "undercover" is that unless you are participating in what is going on, chances are the people you are trying to inform on will peg you real quick. "Hey, don't talk to that guy, everyone he talks to gets busted by the feds."
The Secret Service is no different than any other law enforcement agency. The dirtiest, most corrupt wing is always "Vice", simply because in order to find the guys they're trying to bust the cops have to get very, very, very dirty themselves. Sometimes they go native [guardian.co.uk], sometimes they really go native [gawker.com], sometimes they get really freaking insane [google.com] (more here [rawstory.com]. Sometimes it's even worse. Undercover cops on major mafia infiltration cases have had almost carte blanche to participate in anything that went on, so long as they testified later.
Am I completely convinced he's telling the truth? No. Is it reasonably plausible that someone in the Secret Service gave him verbal instructions to do certain things in order to keep his credibility up so as to set up future busts, but then decided he wasn't worth it and used him as a scapegoat? Absolutely.
Re: (Score:2)
yes you're correct, I only skimmed it before.
It shouldn't be too hard at all to prove if he was actually receiving the 75K pay etc.
His story certainly is plausible though he may have been doing far more than his handlers knew: multiple online identities and all.
Though I would have thought that once you busted someone and had them working for you things such as hardware keyloggers with some hardened hardware and reqirements like only using authorized hardware would be part of the deal to allow auditing to ma
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's called a citizen's arrest.
The problem with not being a cop is strict liability if you fuck it up.
Re: (Score:1)
I have been close to this case for various reasons, but this dude's exploits were only detected after the card brands detected massive fraud. The Secret Service might have authorized breaches, but I am sure the Secret Service didn't authorize CC fraud or divulging cardholder data to random people for them to commit fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Government is authorized to commit illegal acts A,B,C
Therefore the Government is also authorized to commit illegal acts C,D,F
I'm pretty sure there is a logical fallacy in there somewhere. Unfortunately I'm not well verse enough on the subject matter to name it.
There is a huge difference between publicly carrying out the execution of a convicted criminal and secretly attacking your own people with a computer virus.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is: given the other examples, ABC it's not absurd for someone to believe that the government can give them permission to do C,D and F as well.
Agents under cover in criminal organizations appear to have some protection when it comes to things they have to do while under cover.
Re: (Score:1)
dude, you made a typo. I think you meant its legal if the gov't does it.
Re: (Score:1)
The government does things that would be illegal for the average citizen all the time in the process of law enforcement or intelligence gathering. We entrust them with this power and even put in some checks and balances to prevent it from being abused (stop laughing.) By its very nature, having someone go undercover pretty much demands that some illegal activities are committed in order to get the information required to catch the bad actors before they do something worse. The difference here (if we beli
Re: (Score:2)
It could well count as entrapment tho depending on the details of the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly. Of course the government can authorize illegal activity [wired.com]. In fact it happens all the time, and we even have an entire theory of the constitutional presidency [youtube.com] which justifies it. Whether they did in this case, though, I don't know.
Re: (Score:3)
They can't "authorized" illegal activity, and "following orders" is not a legal defense.
Unless it is illegal warrantless wiretapping, and you are a big telco.
Re: (Score:1)
Undercover cops are allowed to commit illegal, criminal activities in order to "fit in".
Re: (Score:2)
It's illegal if the gov't does it too. They can't "authorized" illegal activity, and "following orders" is not a legal defense.
Be that as it may, the CIA director has admitted to his department supplying drugs to the LA street gangs. When does this trial begin?
This "cracker" is nothing more than a dupe. Therefore, plausible deniability.
Re: (Score:3)
It's only illegal if the law says it's illegal. A lot of the "anti-hacking" laws have provisions that basically say "This law not applicable to Law Enforcement and the US Government". So "It's illegal if the gov't does it too" isn't always true.
Re: (Score:2)
Things may be against the law but that doesn't matter if you have somewhere like China where the rule of law takes second place to expedience. We are getting a lot like China where we pretend the rule of law is important but instead act like a medieval King John before Magna Carta. Nobody is supposed to be above the law - not even a President and those who follow him. Nobody is supposed to be below the law - not even some prisoners
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A bit off topic here... (Score:2)
But what does this story have to do with Microsoft, and why is there are Bill the Borg icon attached to it?
I mean... I know it's a samzenpus post but still... Wouldn't a script do his job cheaper and more effectively?
Re: (Score:2)
"Entrapment" would be a legal defense.
Rule 1 of doing anything for the government: get that shit in writing. Their verbal promises are expressly voided by the fine print in the contract you didn't sign.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not the same thing as cops / firetrucks to not fal (Score:2)
not the same thing as cops / firetrucks / others to not fall under speeding laws when responding and they have training on how to be safe and most speeding is from speed traps / cash cows on roads where a high speed is safe.
Lawyers (Score:1)
Wow, if you read the article this gets weirder and weirder.
"Gonzalez’s former attorney, Rene Palomino, disputes assertions that the Secret Service approved Gonzalez’s crimes."
Does being his 'former' attorney mean that client-attorney confidentiality no longer applies? And how the hell does Rene Palomino know the details of whether or what the Secret Service approved of - was he in on it too?
Re: (Score:1)
He's arguing ineffective assistance of counsel (Score:3)
IAALBNYLSDR
Re: (Score:2)
I think the theory here is, lawyers have a duty of confidentiality about what they are told, but no such duty about what they weren't told, and no duty to further propagate lies clients tell them
-"Counselor, did your client ever tell you he was innocent?"
-"Nope"
Lawyers have a duty of confidentiality, period. They cannot reveal, directly or indirectly, what their clients told them. And, except for sworn statements, they can tell lies, if that's in the client's best interests. Obviously, law enforcement people also tell lies, if they think it will help convict the suspect.
It's only on the witness stand that they have the duty to answer every question truthfully, although even there they don't have (a
So you're a lawyer now? (Score:2)
-"Nope"
Cute, but of course, not analogous to claiming, after you've admitted guilt in court, "I told my lawyer about a defense and he didn't use it."
Lawyers do have a right to defend themselves from claims of malpractice, unless you have some new case law I haven't seen that was passed in the last week; I've been pretty busy lately.
Lawyers have a duty of confidentiality, period.
No, it isn't "period." There is a well-settled crime-fra
Re: (Score:2)
as a rule lawyers cannot introduce false evidence into court. since this is probably a lie the former lawyer can talk about it all he wants.
you can defend your client, but have to do so within the bounds of factual evidence or dispute the government's evidence
Re: (Score:2)
For one, obviously, the former (or present) attorney has no obligation to keep confidential the narrative of the plea bargain.
Thought he was full of it, until I saw his handler (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Should have linked to this instead:
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0004871/ [imdb.com]
Ummmm, not buying the bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, but this sounds really implausible to me. I'd need to see some solid proof before Id' accept this. For one, I can't see what the Secret Service would hope to gain. I mean if they need records for credit card transactions at stores they've got a far easier way to get them: Just subpoena the CC processors. They can have whoever the stores use (companies like Paymentech or the like) hand over all the records. Not only is that legal, but it is also much more covert since the companies themselves are not compromised.
This would be how investigations work. They just get a court order for the people who have the info to hand it over, they don't hire some random guy to try and hack your shit. They get a subpoena or a warrant (depending on what they need, in some cases they might want to monitor traffic live for that they'd have a wiretap warrant) and they go to the people with the info. It's legal, maintains the chain of evidence, and gets much more guaranteed results than hacking.
Also I find it hard to believe that if he really was working under orders from the SS that he wouldn't have told his lawyers and they wouldn't have done something. In my experience federal public defenders aren't morons. It is a good job, they can get good people. I can't imagine if he had opened up with "Guys I didn't think I was doing anything wrong! The Secret Service told me to do this!" they wouldn't have investigated that.
To me, sounds like something he invented in a way to try and get out of jail. I'm not saying it is impossible, but I find it rather beyond credibility.
Doesn't add up (Score:1)
He made $75.000,00 a year but couldn't pay off a debt of $5000,00?
He's convicted for millions of dollars worth of fraud, but can't afford a ticket to Turkey for his lawyer?
Can someone explain, please.
Re: (Score:2)
He made $75.000,00 a year but couldn't pay off a debt of $5000,00?
He's convicted for millions of dollars worth of fraud, but can't afford a ticket to Turkey for his lawyer?
Can someone explain, please.
Google for "frozen assets" or "impounded assets"
Re: (Score:1)
Culturally Illiterate? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't that clear and present danger?
Indeed... (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnAKd6PRjDs [youtube.com]
Simple solution (Score:1)
Keep him in prison, and throw the people from the Secret Service who "authorized" him in with him.
what are the laws for informants / uncover? (Score:2)
what are the laws for informants / uncover?
uncovers cops break the laws all the time (just on a basic level of having a fake ID what happens in a traffic stop?) to much more as part of being uncover.
and informants are in some of same place what happens if a beat cops gets them with drugs on them at are part of being a informant? or they get fingered by the people they are informing one as part of deal to get off easy and not all cops know they are a informant / it's for a different crime?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer, and don't know much about it, but I'd imagine that anyone in a situation like that is royally screwed.
The secretary (Score:2)
Has the secretary disavowed all knowledge of his actions?
If not, then I don't believe it
Details look confirmable (and OLD) (Score:2)
RTFP =Petition? :)
Most of the things he attests to actually seem plausible. My guess would be he did participate, with their knowledge and consent on SOME operations. (He probably did very little, but is exagerating to make it seem that he was lead to believe he was now an ACTUAL agent himself)
But, where he fails is that it all look quite a while before the crime for which he was convicted. Like three years later...
Summary- I think he did turn informant on some earlier crimes, but did this well after.
Letter of Immunity (Score:2)
IANALOC ( I am not a lawyer or criminal) , but in most countries except the shadiest ones, if you are directed by tge government to commit illegal activities, with it you also get a letter of immunity from prosecution which you carry with you on all times.
Does such a letter or written authorization exist in this case?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but Jack Bauer was too busy making his TV show and couldn't hand deliver the letter. Ask again in 24 hours.
Goverment + Hackers = Scapegoat (Score:3, Insightful)
Having had... friends... involved in similar situations, I can attest to the case that if this guy worked for the Government, and was a scapegoat, they basically set him up for failure.
If he succeeded and was able to hide his tracks of hacking, the Government got their information and won.
If he failed and was unable to hide his tracks of hacking, the Government got partial information and won.
If the guy failed gloriously, the Government got what information they could, and have an instant scapegoat. Just add press. And won.
Win win for the government, and they can say at any time plausible deniability.
The friend in question I had was an excellent hacker. He hacked into banks for shits and giggles, went into government systems like a person would skip in the park. One day, he screwed up, the government found out, the guy disappeared. No jail time, no newspaper/press of him hacking. And all his college entrance and time spent at college disappeared as well. For all intents and purposes the guy never went to college, and I'll be surprised if there was anything other than a clean-record of the guy other than being born, his SS#, and place of residence. White-washed history for government signed-on hacker. And because of the dirt the government now had on this guy, he became Uncle Sam's bitch.
How the good ol' government gets these people to accept said positions of scapegoatness is fairly simple.
They find dirt on someone exceptionally good at computer espionage, or if they can't find legit dirt, they create some and seed it throughout the gold ol' internet and stack false records against them, at least in such a way to make it... difficult... for the target individual to live a decent life without cow-towing to the government officials.
Said person signs documentation that makes them 'legally' work for said government that is their 'get out of jail free' card. Except, the documentation doesn't really exist unless it is in the best interests of the government. Ergo, they have the hacker by the balls. The hacker continues to do a good job, and can cover their tracks enough to not point a finger at the government in -any way- or can hide their existance in such a way to be not backtraced, any and all possible ability to nail the guy goes up in smoke. All logs, all reports, disappear. If they can point their finger in anyway at either the hacker or the government, the 'get out of jail free' card becomes toilet paper and the guy's head goes to the block as the scapegoat.
May sound like bullshit, but as I've seen this shit first hand, it's not a pleasant experience.
It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you.
Just food for thought.
Re: (Score:2)
If he worked for the government he'd have a paper trail. Check deposits, orders, emails, etc.
He'd keep the evidence.
If he has no evidence, it never happened, or might as well have never happened.
If he just let someone else convince him he was working for the Secret Service, then it's a hilarious example of social engineering.
Bravo to whoever crocked a l33t h4xx0r like that.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it does sound like bullshit. It sounds like you've been listening to stories at hacker conventions, and adopting them as first-hand knowledge.
I don't believe for a minute somebody's college info would be wiped out like that -- and why would it need to be? And the claim about being framed, well which is it, was this guy caught in a crime as you said, or was he framed? Since you claim the former, this latter bit is just making stuff up that fits your worldview.
Sorry, but your story isn't credible. I migh
If you can't do the time (Score:3)
don't do the crime.
You got busted, you stoled people identities and ruined credit. ain't no one going to believe you, or be on your side. If you were smart, you would of kept records of your involvement with the government, so when the shit did hit the fan, like it was going to, then you got your ass covered. You didn't.
Sleep with your back to the wall.
Don't drop the soap.
A bit late now... (Score:1)
Oh so the Americans do it too? (Score:1)
Why no pardon? (Score:2)
I would think serving as George Bush's attorney general would earn the man a presidential pardon for something like this.
Re:almighty; rebates, bailouts coming, giving back (Score:4, Informative)
No, you're wrong.
It's the Illuminati bringing back The Old Ones to immanentize the eschaton.
The sarcrifices will begin after midnight, right after the American Medical Association band does its third encore.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:1)
You joke ... but Call of Cthulhu had earthquakes and what-not happening from March 22 to April 2 that were the result of Cthulhu rising.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got my reserved ticket to be eaten first.
Neener neener.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Kick out the JAMS!