Barrett Brown, Formerly of Anonymous, Sentenced To 63 Months 110
An anonymous reader writes with news that a journalist linked to Anonymous, Barret Brown, has been sentenced. "Barrett Brown, a journalist formerly linked to the hacking group Anonymous, was sentenced Thursday to over five years in prison, or a total of 63 months. Ahmed Ghappour, Brown's attorney, confirmed to Ars that Brown's 28 months already served will count toward the sentence. That leaves 34 months, or nearly three years, left for him to serve. In April 2014, Brown took a plea deal admitting guilt on three charges: "transmitting a threat in interstate commerce," for interfering with the execution of a search warrant, and to being "accessory after the fact in the unauthorized access to a protected computer." Brown originally was indicted in Texas federal court in December 2012 on several counts, including accusations that he posted a link from one Internet relay chat channel, called #Anonops, to another channel under his control, called #ProjectPM. The link led to private data that had been hijacked from intelligence firm Strategic Forecasting, or Statfor."
FTFY (Score:1, Redundant)
Formerly anonymous.
There is no anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been on the scene since the '70s, and as much as I hope that my real identity to not be revealed to the world, I understand that once I post something online I take a risk (calculated or otherwise) of having my real identity exposed
There is no anonymity online or offline
Re: There is no anonymity (Score:4, Funny)
There is a risk, calculated or otherwise, that you are Pierre Mohammed Finklestein III of Bychawa, Poland.
I have determined this based on my keen understanding of the information I have about you. With a little more information I could reduce the uncertainty...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Or a Clouseau.
Re: There is no anonymity (Score:4, Funny)
You are an unattractive girl, mid 20s, who has glowing stars on the ceiling of her bedroom and who goes to hot yoga class without realizing that yoga pants are not for everyone. You are lazy and significantly overestimate your intelligence. Your father is a fat guy who works in an unionized organization and prepares tax returns for $20 cash during tax season. You have a small pet, probably a semi-exotic bird, and there's a faint rancid smell in your bathroom that you can't explain. Your front teeth are ok but the side ones are yellow. You put the underwear that has no stain on the left side of your top drawer, and when you clean the lint from a dryer you tend to throw it behind the machine if no one is looking. You have vague notions of a foreign language, probably Spanish, but you always try to let other people think that you are fluent in that language. One time in middle school you did something wrong, like stealing booze, and when the theft was discovered you planted evidence to have someone else take the blame. When you masturbate, you think about the following: the young teenage girl next door (20% of the time), being raped by two old bums behind a dumpster (30%), doing a striptease for Steve Martin while he's drinking a can of lukewarm Diet Pepsi (50%).
That's who you truly are. Your name or address is just paperwork.
Re: (Score:2)
Mein Gott! I totally know her.
Re: (Score:1)
You should not talk about your wife in that way.
Re:There is no anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of these guys get caught because they open their yaps. A lot of us old timers from the early days never got caught. When the 414's were taken down I know several people that avoided it simply because they actually listened to the "trust no one" mantra. Just like how the guys that took over WTTW never got caught because they did NOT open their big fat mouths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]
So a tip from someone old..... earning "cred" is for noobs. Keep your mouth shut and you really reduce the risk of getting caught.
Re: There is no anonymity (Score:1)
Says bragging dipshit...
Re: (Score:2)
bragging is when you go "i did {x}"
he is saying "if you don't want to be caught, do {y}"
he's giving advice that doesn't implicate him in anything, in an on topic comment
he doesn't owe you anything, so say "thanks"
or say nothing
or reveal the only real character defect in this thread, which is not being a bragging dipshit, but yours: loudmouth asshole begging for a pointless fight
and that pointless fight will find you someday. you'll mouth off like you just did, because you wrongly think it makes you superior
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, these kids need more paranomia.
Re: (Score:2)
Barret Brown didn't do any hacking. He's a reporter. Reporters are fucking supposed to report the news, not keep it secret. This was just an example of the fact if the Feds want to get you, they have criminal code base so large, nobody can even count crimes let alone fit all of that knowledge into a single brain. Of course, not knowing the law is no excuse (unless you are cop), and having no intent to break the is irrelevant. What this boils down to, is the Feds can fuck you up any time they want if th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
lots of "formerly" to go around (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. Everyone seems to think he was a hacker. He's a __reporter__ .
Not hacker.
Writer.
It's his job to tell people the news. He's going to jail essentially (though not technically) for linking to data. That ain't hacking.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know all the facts. Which makes me... like almost everyone else here.
It certainly smells like "shoot the messenger" to me. Somebody was upset that their data was leaked, they couldn't or didn't want to attack the leaker, so they went for a convenient scapegoat.
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously, this case reveals much more about the brain-dead US legal system, the overreach by Federal authorities and the abuse of legal powers than it does anything else. There is no way that any sane person can justify 5 years in jail for linking to a stolen source in a forum.
The pathetic bunch that ran Stratfor lost it and someone needed to take the fall for it. If it was a mom and pop shop that couldn't have known better that was "burgled", it would have been a different story, but these guys were su
And now... 3... 2... 1... (Score:3)
And now... 3... 2... 1...
(1) Find a journalist you don't like who has linked to a vulnerable site they don't control
(2) Replace the content at the link target with illegally obtained material about someone powerful
(3) Sit back and watch how well the new SWATting works!
Journalistic shield laws anyone? The new first amendment-resistant law enforcement looks like we need something to replace the old antibiotics...
Re: (Score:2)
(3) Sit back and watch how well the new SWATting works!
what's new about it?
2 years in prison, a million $ fine, and no actual SWAT teams involved?
Re:And now... 3... 2... 1... (Score:4, Insightful)
Aside from the fact that that wouldn't work anyways (intent to link to the illegal material would be required, and that certainly wouldn't meet that qualification), the hyperlinking charges were dropped. Yeah, the Slashdot summary is a bit deceptive (absolutely shocking, I know).
Be afraid (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Be afraid (Score:5, Insightful)
The US press and media thought it had it all after the Pentagon Papers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#The_Supreme_Court_allows_further_publication
Now the US press has to try and stay how many hops away before publishing or commenting?
Very chilling for the US press.
It's going to get worse quickly! (Score:3)
In addition to jailing whistle blowers as we have seen numerous times, Journalists who report what Whistle blowers tell them are now felons. The first amendment has officially been shredded, and now comes the icing on the cake.
CISPA is back on the fast track program, as well as other programs to jail anyone and everyone including White hats.
Since the TPP is being fast tracked too, and corporations have immunity from all prosecution, we may not know what happens since Chinese hackers will simply be handing
Re: (Score:3)
Anonymity and privacy for whistleblowers is gone with systems like Tempora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The ability to track back any contact with a journalist removes all anonymity. The privacy of the message could be lost to malware.
GCHQ captured emails of journalists from top international media (19 jan 2015)
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-... [theguardian.com]
The US always thought it was legally covered with a free and
Re: (Score:2)
Three felonies a day. [threefeloniesaday.com] We all do it. Congress has set up a situation such that if the feds really want you they can find things to charge you with. I don't have a lot of sympathy for this particular guy, but you're right.
Re: (Score:2)
The felonies in the book are acts where for any particular random American it is possible, but highly unlikely that they will commit one in their lifetime. It is close to impossible that any American will ever do three of these felonies in one day. The claim that every American will do three of these felonies every day of their life is utterly ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
Complacency. What freedom haters have for breakfast.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB... [wsj.com]
Aside from statutes, beware the CFRs:
Re: (Score:2)
And just so it is clear what level of morality exists among Federal prosecutors, consider this "game" which certainly gets applied in real life:
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Given a sufficiently stupid grand jury, I could be indicted for any crime.
Re: (Score:3)
They couldn't prosecute 'Anonymous' so they targeted the first person publicly claiming to be a leader within 'Anonymous'. Pretty illogical because as I understand it, you can not be a member of 'Anonymous' once you publicly claim to be a member of 'Anonymous'. When it first came out 'Anonymous' had more to do with mocking the aggressive for profit bureaucracy of Scientology and the asthmatic dwarf in charge with regard to their desire to persecute anyone who protested them. So the pretence of being 'Anony
Re: (Score:1)
Well, the FBI pretty much did shut down Anonymous. After they busted the inner circle of people who actually could crack things (Sabu et al) Anonymous hasn't really done much of anything. They talk about going after ISIS websites or whatever, but have they? And they've announced pretty much no targets in the US (don't rankle them feds). It now really is just guys in Guy Fawkes masks in their parents' basements.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently apart from these people http://www.forbes.com/sites/pa... [forbes.com] or these people http://www.theguardian.com/uk-... [theguardian.com] but hey believe what ever you want to believe. I think the word you were looking for was LulzSec rather than 'Anonymous' but then those members of LulzSec choose to temporarily associate themselves with the idea of 'Anonymous' and choose their own approach, including the decision by the masters FBI to commit crimes in others countries by molesting children ie grooming minors to commit cri
Re: (Score:2)
One of those articles is from 2012, and neither involves anything to do with the hacktivism for which Anonymous was known. Just another protest march.
Re: (Score:2)
It's unfortunate. (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO he had a good case and could have won but I understand him taking the plea.
He didn't know the information was there in the link that led to this whole thing and the "threats" were hyperbole at the best. He probably couldn't afford a good attorney and he was looking at decades in prison. Typical FBI strategy is charge them with everything in the book so they plea to lessor charge you actually want.
It's a travesty what they did to him.
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI doesn't bring charges. That's the prosecutor's job. Didn't you ever watch Law & Order? With all the spinoffs in sindication it's on pretty much 24 hours a day.
But what you're saying is true. 98% of prosecutions are pled out, and you know lots of those people are innocent. But the way the system is set up now they can throw 100 charges that all bring 3-5 years at you and all of the sudden you could be looking at 500 years in prison. Orrrrrr, you could take the plea and get three years.
O
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Objectively it's smart to take the plea, too. On average people who go to court get 20% longer sentences.
Negative. I demanded a trial and my case disappeared -- not dismissed, just ::poof::, gone.
Now, the thing to watch out for is that they can and will keep resetting your court date so you're locked up awaiting a trial and achieve a substantial amount of time-served, which they then offer you. Hey, you want to get out today? Take time served by admitting you're guilty.
Fail to admit you're guilty on principal because you know you'll win? The case doesn't go to trial because it makes the DAs and prosecuter'
Re: (Score:2)
True story.
Buddy of mine is a hard-core Republican. Was, anyway, a huge law enforcement cheerleader. Cops can do no wrong, people wouldn't be on trial if they weren't guilty, lock 'em up and throw away the key. White, moderately wealthy businessman, even donated two German Shepherds to the local PD.
Well, he was in Ohio once and had a bad day. He'd been out to dinner and had a few drinks, but had taken plenty of time to sober up before hitting the road back to his hotel. Cops pulled him over, he blew and got
Re: (Score:2)
Who prosecuted you - the feds or the state of New Jersey?
Re:It's unfortunate. (Score:5, Informative)
10.5 decades to be exact.
Barrett Brown Faces 105 Years in Jail: But no one can figure out what law he broke. Introducing America's least likely political prisoner [rollingstone.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Get off it -- that search warrant was based on a reporter posting a link to data. The underlying issue is that he is being punished for engaging in 1st Amendment activity, the ultimate basis for his punishment doesn't matter to the Feds.
Think of it this way: say you decided to install Chrome on your computer, so you download it from the official location and install it. Then a warrant is issued so the cops can examine your laptop to figure out if you installed Chrome. You're thinking "WTF?" that's not
You can't trust any hacking charges now (Score:5, Interesting)
He was accused of hacking. We learned from the recent NSA Snowden leaks, that NSA hacks computers, but sends the data to scapegoat targets and collects the data as it crosses the public network.
So when you see a high anti-US person conveniently on a hacking charge, you have to immediately ask if he's been fitted up for the crime, if he's one of these scapegoat targets.
http://boingboing.net/2015/01/18/ecstatic-nsa-spooks-delight-in.html
"But the loot isn't delivered directly to ROC's IP address. Rather, it is routed to a so-called Scapegoat Target. That means that stolen information could end up on someone else's servers, making it look as though they were the perpetrators."
There's quite a few of these that have raise eyebrows, Pirate Bay founder hacks Sweden, supposedly to look for extradition warrants, and yet leaves a trail of evidence back to himself?? Handy, who gains most from that? Not him, there is no extradition treaty between Laos and Sweden. North Korea hacks Sony, NSA justifies its surveillance program. Who gains most?
I have my doubts.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The article points to a YouTube video of him doing this.
hit somebody with his car (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy should have hit and actually killed somebody with his car, he would have faired better in court. These laws need some serious relooking.
with "good time"... (Score:2)
he's out in 18 months
who is he? (Al Capone the tax evader) (Score:2, Insightful)
Does anyone here happen to know who this guy is, what he did? TFS mentions what the prosecutor intended to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but they could prove that All Capone cheated on his taxes and OJ Simpson intimidated a guy in a hotel room. They were pursued and partially sentenced based on what they DID, apart from which bits the prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
If asked "who was Al Capone?", you wouldn't answer "a guy who cheated on his taxes". Who is this person?
Re:who is he? (Al Capone the tax evader) (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
He isn't even a hacker -- he's a reporter FFS. He's going down for reporting stuff the powers that be didn't want reported, the actual crime he is being punished under is just a technicality.
Re: (Score:2)
He deserves to spend years in prison for being a pretentious asshole? That's ridiculous.
Re: treason (Score:1, Insightful)
Rage away, little nerd. We're watching and laughing. Meanwhile the Real World shits all over you. Nobody will be prosecuted but your "heroes". Get used to it.
Thanks for admitting that you're a paid shill. (Score:1)
Derp (Score:2)
It's Stratfor, not Statfor!
Why only in America? (Score:1)
Australia, Canada and the UK are hardly perfect. But this type of legal abuse is unheard of. Somehow the courts have remained independent of politics. There are no huge sentences handed down for trivial crimes. And plea bargaining is nothing like as bad.
Is it really true that the religious right are so law and order driven?