FBI Put Hactivist Jeremy Hammond On a Terrorist Watchlist 127
blottsie writes The Federal Bureau of Investigation put Anonymous hacker Jeremy Hammond on a secret terrorist watchlist, according to confidential records obtained by the Daily Dot. The records further reveal how the FBI treats cybercrimes and shines a rare light on the expanding definitions of terrorism used by U.S. law enforcement agencies.
As always the definition of a terrorist (Score:5, Insightful)
is anyone that they see as threatening TLA power - particularly for the FBI (communism anyone?).
Re:As always the definition of a terrorist (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell yourself again, we live in a free country.
Also, ten years for at worst is some jackass stunt. Gets put in solidarity for being a communist. Related is that as soon as a similar man, weev gets let of prison, he goes full on NatSoc, after charges are mysteriously dropped, and going out to get a nazi tattoo.
Does this smell like the government propping up fascism, or does it smell like the government propping up fascism?
Re:As always the definition of a terrorist (Score:5, Insightful)
basicly the definition of terrorism as defined by the government is nothing more than "dissent"
Did you read the article? According to the definition issued by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) in March 2013 ... an individual may be nominated to the TSDB watchlist for suspected acts [... that threats to society ... ] or "influence the policy of a government."
If your suspected action threatens to influence government policy, you're good enough for a terrorist watchlist.
Let's throw all of Washington DC into gitmo. They're threatening to influence government policy. Terrorists, the lot of them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why did you take out the important words explaining the actions in question?
suspected "acts dangerous to property, or infrastructure" that appear intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population," or "influence the policy of a government."
It's like you want us to think peaceful protesters are going on the list, instead of people who blow stuff up.
Re:As always the definition of a terrorist (Score:5, Insightful)
If your peaceful protest has an ideology that's anything but capitalist, then I'm sure there's someone at the FBI capable of construing it as "dangerous to [the concept of] property."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not sure how you got modded up since peaceful people will most certainly end up on this list. Have a look at the 50's and McCarthyism for a better understanding.
Re:As always the definition of a terrorist (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious what Mr Hammond blew up to get him on this list.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the super stretchy lie of "acts dangerous to property , or infrastructure", oh look the protester spilt their milk shake, that needs to be cleaned up because it leaves infrastructure in a dangerous state, slippery, lets go beat the fuck out of the bastard of course if it's a female, then it is boobie grab time, yeah (then arrest them for resisting arrest, which of course is a circular loop pre-crime). Spill water even, how do they know its water they believed and belief is all that is require to
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Speaking on behalf of the FBI:
"There is no such thing as organized crime".
J. Edgar Hoover
Al Qaeda is an across the pond variety of the mob, so obviously there is no such thing as terrorism either.
Re: (Score:1)
Having to change the policy of the gov't for free brings terror to the hearts of our legislators.
Re: (Score:1)
I would think the financial end run on all this would be more terrorizing but they won't be too worried until the oil business selects a replacement primary currency which appears to be in the works, and other countries start to refuse the US dollar as payment. Then maybe they will stop the money printing presses, stop increasing the debt ceiling and realize their scam is over and the union will break up, or worse: revolt. Mob runs on two sets of books and can evade the bottom line, entire countries can't
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Shockingly enough, the author selectively quoted the NCTC document, creating a false and misleading narrative for shock value. From page 84 of the March 2013 NCTC whitelisting guidelines [firstlook.org]:
TERRORISM AND/OR TERRORIST ACTIVITIES: is a combination of denitions because none of
the federal law definitions of "terrorism" or "terrorist activities" were directly applicable to the
consolidated approach to watchlisting. For terrorist watchlisting purposes under this
Watchlisting Guidance, "terrorism and/or terrorist activities" combine elements from various
federal definitions and are considered to: involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human
life, property, or infrastructure that may be a violation of U.S. law, or may have been, if those
acts were committed in the United States; and, appear intended to intimidate or coerce a
civilian population, infuence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect
the conduct of government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.
This includes activities that facilitate or support TERRORISM and/or TERRORIST ACTIVITIES, such
as providing a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other
material benefit, false documentation or identifucation, weapons (including chemical, biological,
or radiological weapons), explosives, or training for the commission of act of terrorism and/or
TERRORIST ACTIVITY.
Emphasis added.
I'm no fan of the police state, either, but we should be honest on the facts. It's not merely the influencing the policy of a government that's considered "terrorism," it's doing so "by intimidation or coercion." Which I believe is a reasonable definition of terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
Addendum:
There's a typo or two because I cut and paste from the OCRed version of the document. "denitions" should be "definitions," etc.
Also, note that for something to be terrorism, it must "involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure...and, appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce" etc etc etc influence government policy. (emphasis added).
So further still, it isn't even enough for the intention to influence the policy of a government to merely involve "intimidati
Re:As always the definition of a terrorist (Score:4, Insightful)
It should also be noted that "terrorism" includes:
Note the "communications" part, which could be used to justify nailing the PGP and/or GPG people if desired....
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a stretch. Everything else on the list is direct material support. Putting out a product millions of people use, but the baddies also use, is not direct material support, any more than they should watch Ford Motor Company if it turns out terrorists drive Ford Escorts.
Again, how it plays out in practice could be very different. But the stated definition is not scary.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that.
My quote was a reduction of what was in the article. The article itself reduced the 14-line block of text into a 4-clause statement, so I didn't have the full thing to pull from.
From the 4-clause article excerpt it seemed a reasonable quote. From the 50-something clause actual guidelines, not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
Technically, re-reading what The Daily Dot author wrote, he's still mostly correct, but it's phrased in such a way (and followed by a scary quote) to make it seem like you'll be branded a terrorist for speech intended to influence a government.
Unlike U.S. law, the TSC's definition excludes a threat to human life as a prerequisite for terrorist activity.
According to the definition issued by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) in March 2013, in addition to threatening human life, an individual may be nominated to the TSDB watchlist for suspected "acts dangerous to property, or infrastructure" that appear intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population," or "influence the policy of a government."
Well, yes, that's true. He put the ellipses in place of "human life," but still included it in the previous clause. "Property or infrastructure" sound less severe when decoupled from "human life." And he definitely should have left in the "by intimidation or coercion"
Re: (Score:2)
If "influencing the policy of a government" is a terrorist act, most corporations are terrorist organizations.
Re: (Score:3)
|influence the policy of a government.
Damn, looks like all of the lobbyists and the poor "picked on" non-political 501(c) that are all about politics are terrorists.
Re: (Score:1)
If your suspected action threatens to influence government policy, you're good enough for a terrorist watchlist.
And now you know why the FBI put "National Security" on its charter. National Security means: To maintain the status quo even against the will of the nation's people. This means spying on Civil Rights Activists, Women's Rights Activists, and Anti-War activists among others. [wikipedia.org]
It's not enough to want to influence government policy. If you care about anything enough to do something about it -- say, organize a voting block, petition and/or protest, submit a bill, etc. AND it goes against the status quo, then y
You wanted it, you got it, you deserve it. (Score:1)
Yep, and being on a list makes no difference at all to anyone, right? Just ask anyone listed as a sexual or violent offender after completing their sentence (or when they weren't even convicted of a crime) how well that's worked out for them. "It's not punishment", quoth the brain-dead old oath breakers on the supreme court. Ah huh.
You idiots wanted the government to have the power to put anyone on a list no matter what. Well, now they have it. Don't feel so fucking self-
Re:As always the definition of a terrorist (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay first off, I have the displeasure of knowing Jeremy Hammond. Personally.
My basic opinion? He's an unthinking jackass.
He also does have a history of violence and acting out when he doesn't get his way.
He got ten years, not because what he did was a jackass stunt.
He got ten years because he's a REPEAT OFFENDER. He was busted back in 2006 for doing the same exact thing to a site called ProtestWarrior. He went to jail for 18 months.
And if he's in solitary (not "solidarity" comrade), it's due almost entirely to his abrasive personality. Hammond is the type of person who immediately becomes offensive if you disagree with him even a little. Being dropped in solitary is likely preventing him from being shanked.
Re: (Score:1)
Chas has just been added to the watch list for associating with a known terrorist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well,
Considering that the first thing he does when thwarted is try to inflict harm on people he disagrees with?
And the fact that he openly associated himself with an international "hacktivist" network that was breaking into government-affiliated websites (among other forms of mischeif)?
That he's had a history of anti-government rhetoric that condones the use of violence?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering all of these?
No, I don't think he should be labelled terrorist. Did he kill people? Blow something up?
Re: (Score:2)
Try reading the ENTIRE post next time douchebag.
Re: (Score:2)
Even in jail, there are people who understand the concept of a social filter.
Hammond has none. I mean NONE.
Re:As always the definition of a terrorist (Score:5, Insightful)
"Terrorism" is the new word for "sedition". It turns out "treason" is really difficult to prosecute, but if you change the crime of "acts of war" into a generic and malleable term like "terrorism", you can throw all kinds of nonsense in there that the government considers subversive. Now you don't actually have to do anything wrong to be guilty. You just have to make people afraid that you are!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many people did Jeremy Hammond kill? How many maimed and injured? What he did was the digital equvilant of and egging, some spray paint and perhaps a brick or two through the window of the CIA headquaters.
Politically motivated crime yes, but is it terrorism? no.
The definition of "terrorism" is not "otherwise crime committed with the motivation of opposing the system. The word for that is mos
Re: (Score:2)
It also doesn't mean that the threat is real, that the methods employed are effective, or that the treatment isn't worse than the disease. If you actually want to stop militant Islam, decimating the military and shutting down most of our TLAs would be some of the best steps to take. Giving less of a shit about terrorism would also be helpful, and
Re: (Score:2)
The only people that really expected communism to collapse under it's own weight were right wingers.
Left wingers expected capitalism to collapse.
It takes someone completely tone deaf to history to not realize that communism was a real threat. It had to wipe out all other systems for it to survive and all the leftists knew it.
Re: (Score:1)
Why is it always the trolls that can't spell?
Strategy (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days (Score:5, Insightful)
Participate in a protest the government doesn't like: Watch List
Buy too many guns or ammo in X period of time: Watch List
Visit some country our government doesn't like: Watch List
Donate to a charity or organization our government doesn't like: Watch List
Use VPN's or TOR or tech to try to keep some privacy: Probably on a Watch List
I'm sure I could expand this list quite a bit were I to put some effort into it. But you get the point.
Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days (Score:4, Insightful)
Say something the government doesn't like: Watch List
Participate in a protest the government doesn't like: Watch List
Buy too many guns or ammo in X period of time: Watch List
Visit some country our government doesn't like: Watch List
Donate to a charity or organization our government doesn't like: Watch List
Use VPN's or TOR or tech to try to keep some privacy: Probably on a Watch List
I'm sure I could expand this list quite a bit were I to put some effort into it. But you get the point.
Uses the Internet: Watch List.
Uses a cell phone: Watch List.
Uses a credit card: Watch List.
Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days (Score:5, Funny)
Say something the government doesn't like: Watch List
Participate in a protest the government doesn't like: Watch List
Buy too many guns or ammo in X period of time: Watch List
Visit some country our government doesn't like: Watch List
Donate to a charity or organization our government doesn't like: Watch List
Use VPN's or TOR or tech to try to keep some privacy: Probably on a Watch List
I'm sure I could expand this list quite a bit were I to put some effort into it. But you get the point.
Uses the Internet: Watch List.
Uses a cell phone: Watch List.
Uses a credit card: Watch List.
Not on a Watch List: Watch List
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Won't this present some recursion problems? Now that he's on the watch list, you have to remove him from the "not on the watch list" list. But once you have him removed, he's no longer on any watch list, so you need to add him.
On the other hand, this basically means just moving files from one drawer to another all day. Sounds like a job that government is uniquely suited to run.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't use the Internet, a cell phone, or a credit card? Must be hiding something: Watchlist.
Also, nice sig.
Re: (Score:2)
Eats: Watch List.
Sleeps: Watch List.
Drinks water: Watch List.
Takes a shit: Watch List.
Exists on Earth: Watch List.
Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days (Score:4, Interesting)
> Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days ?
Actual terrorists. The boston bombers were reported to the FBI by Russian security services [reuters.com] but nobody was watching them. One of the Hebdo shooters was known to have gone to Yemen and studied with the underwear bomber [france24.com] the other had been to jail for recruiting extremists [businessinsider.com] and still nobody was watching them.
Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days (Score:5, Funny)
Well, those folks are dangerous. You want to stay away from them at all costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days ?
Actual terrorists. The boston bombers were reported to the FBI by Russian security services [reuters.com] but nobody was watching them.
Bombing a public street is not a threat to the profits of any major corporation. Therefor, not important. The FBI no longer has any resources to protect citizens. They are all looking for IP pirates.
Re: (Score:2)
They are all looking for IP pirates.
"you are under arrest. give back that dotted-quad you stole, you scumbag!"
"(he says he only has 24 bits on him.)"
"shake him down, we'll find where the rest of those bits are!"
Re: (Score:1)
Say something the government doesn't like: Watch List
Participate in a protest the government doesn't like: Watch List
Buy too many guns or ammo in X period of time: Watch List
Visit some country our government doesn't like: Watch List
Donate to a charity or organization our government doesn't like: Watch List
Use VPN's or TOR or tech to try to keep some privacy: Probably on a Watch List
I'm sure I could expand this list quite a bit were I to put some effort into it. But you get the point.
Yeah, we get the point. The main point here is this is a good thing. Let them water it down to worthless and meaningless.
Little easier to defend some bullshit stance to maintain a list when you're on it with 100 million of your fellow citizens.
Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days (Score:4, Insightful)
It will at some point reach the stage where if you aren't on a watch list you aren't being a very active participant in the steering of society: You don't talk about real issues because you either don't care or are too afraid to, you don't exercise your rights and are too afraid to associate with anyone who does, you go out of your way to be part of the status quo and do whatever you're told, your opinions will be handed to you by Fox News, and someone will be checking you share them on your Facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
It will at some point reach the stage where if you aren't on a watch list you aren't being a very active participant in the steering of society: You don't talk about real issues because you either don't care or are too afraid to, you don't exercise your rights and are too afraid to associate with anyone who does, you go out of your way to be part of the status quo and do whatever you're told, your opinions will be handed to you by Fox News, and someone will be checking you share them on your Facebook.
It's not really a question of being on a watch list. The FBI always had questionable ethics when it comes to who they watch, e.g. Martin Luthor King, John Lennon, etc. The problem now is that it is out in the open, and no one is complaining. It used to be a scandal when the government did something wrong. Now no one seems to care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Break into computer resources you're not supposed to have access to and be violently anti-government (emphasis on VIOLENTLY). Watch List.
Steal millions worth of credit card info and make donations to charity that later get yanked, hurting the charity? Watch list.
Go to jail for some of this stuff. Watch list.
You get what you want (Score:3, Insightful)
People love the state, when its eye is on their neighbor.
hacktivist? (Score:5, Informative)
I have my doubts whether "cyberattacks" (presumably things like denial of service, taking advantage of weak passwords, etc.) should receive such harsh penalties. But given that such actions are treated as more serious than many violent crimes, it doesn't seem surprising or inconsistent for the federal government to want to keep an eye on him. The point is: if you don't like what happened to Hammond, complaining about him ending on a terrorist watch list won't do any good; what you should complain about is the harsh laws that made him a serious felon in the eye of the law to begin with.
Re:hacktivist? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, but I think the people who need to be punished severely for that are primarily the people who we entrusted that data to and whose security provisions were obviously inadequate. Punish
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's because companies have never faced much risk over having customer data stolen; as a result, pretty much all the software used for these transactions is utter crap.
There is nothing "random" abo
Re: (Score:2)
I see the devil as being in the details. Defacing websites and DDoS attacks are one thing, but he was also caught stealing personal information and credit card numbers which, while not a violent act, can have a pretty wide spread negative impact on people and probably should be considered a fairly serious crime. Identity theft (which such data is sold for) can be pretty life altering, even if non-violent.
Well, that's a crime, even a serious one, but it's not terrorism. That's the real problem. The FBI watching him as an organized crime perpetrator? I have no problem with that. Putting him on a terrorism watch list? I have a problem with that.
Re: (Score:3)
As I've pointed out elsewhere.
Hammond didn't get 10 years just for this offense.
He's a repeat offender. He went away for a 2 year sentence for a nearly identical offense previously.
So there's an impetus to harsher sentencing for a repeat offense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Does it "solve" the problem?
Depends on how you define the problem.
He's basically shown that, unless he's ACTIVELY prevented from doing this shit, he's going to continue to do it. Regardless of the consequences.
So, putting him away and denying him access to a computing device, while not PERMANENT, *is* a solution.
It also sends a message to others that if you're a recalcitrant jackass like Jeremy Hammond is, and you follow his example, Bad Things are going to happen to you too.
Not sure why this is even an is
Re:hacktivist? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
what about Lobbyists? (Score:1)
Have there not been lawsuits in the past to get the government to use unbiased enforcement of laws and policies?
Two of the "terrorist" definitions from the article the article: "intimidate or coerce a civilian population," or "influence the policy of a government."
How are those definitions not absolutely met by advertising agencies, corporations and lobbyists? This seems like shooting fish in a barrel for the aclu.
Hate the haters (Score:4, Insightful)
unfunny Top Gear reference (Score:2)
Jeremy Hammond? They'll be going after James Clarkson next.
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't Richard May be on that list for completeness?
Stop with the buzzwords (Score:2)
"Hactivist" should be the first to go, then the "internet of things".
Re: (Score:1)
Cry wolf (Score:3)
>> In December 2011, Hammond stole roughly 5 million confidential emails and thousands of credit card numbers
I think the problem in labelling every cyber criminal a terrorist is that it dilutes the whole importance of the label when you're dealing with actual terrorsts.
It seems that its not unlike being an ex-con in the US. So many people in the US get locked up for even relatively trivial offences that having served time doesn't carry half the social stigma in the US that it does in other countries. Therefore encarceratiion in the US is probably less effective as a deterrent than in other countries.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know: Do pro-life activists encourage condoms as a deterrent? Do women stop getting pregnant because some multi-layered hypocrite says childbirth is more important than the consequences of giving birth.
From what I've gathered on slashdot, an arrest record in the USA is a public record. Not your incarceration, not your conviction, just your arrest. Watch 'CSI' or 'Law & order' and see how often the heroic and very clever cops arrest the wrong person. If you are convicted, you frequently go o
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem in labelling every cyber criminal a terrorist is that it dilutes the whole importance of the label when you're dealing with actual terrorsts.
I'd call that an advantage.
At the moment, the governments of various countries (the UK and the US most notably, but there are more) can take away many civil liberties and civil rights from people just by labelling them "terror suspect". No actual evidence is needed, just a suspicion. This can block you from flying, for example. They can throw you in jail, possibly for years without charge (see Guantanamo Bay for example). Can't do that with even rape or murder suspects: you can't keep them in jail indefinit
Re: (Score:2)
>> Terrorists should be dealt with the same way other criminals are dealt with.
Tell that to the family that watched a video of their son being burnt to death in a iron cage yesterday.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2015... [freedomoutpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they have the right to "preferential treatment" compared to, say, the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook?
That perpetrator was not considered "terrorist". Yet his victims were children (who did nothing to him), while this Jordanian pilot was a fighter himself, who knowingly and willingly put himself in harms way.
Re: (Score:2)
Motive and cause.
In the case of Sandy Hook, it seems clear that the perpitrator was actually mentally ill, so was literally malfunctioning mentally.
The terrorists not only clearly knew what they were doing and chose to do it anyway, but had planned it beforehand, and then further used it to try to incite mass terror on a wider scale. Unlike the Sandy hook perpitrator, their intention was to not just kill the victim(s), but to make him suffer in the worst way possible before he died, and then also publicise
Anonymous ? (Score:2)
Anonymous hacker Jeremy Hammond on a secret terrorist watchlist
So, if I understand correctly, there is an named anonymous hacker on a widely publicized secret list...
"hacktivist"? (Score:1)
Hammond is currently serving the remainder of a 10-year prison sentence for his involvement in a series of high-profile cyberattacks targeting federal agencies, private government contractors, and police departments.
Also from the article:
“If we want to use the terrorism database to protect human life, it’s only effective if it is narrowly focused on people who actually pose a threat to human life,” former FBI agent Michael German, now a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, told the Daily Dot.
Simple question: how is a civilian gaining control, without authorization, of command-and-control equipment of police departments and federal agencies not a threat to human life? Did he inform them of their security vulnerabilities in order to allow them to fix em? Granted, it's not his responsibility to do so, but hacking into multiple government facilities for any purposes other than concern for their safety should at least indicate that he is a person worth watchi
Shades of Delta House (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
General Hammond needs to save us from the Robert Kinseys running our country.