Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Reuters' Matthew Keys Accused of Anonymous Conspiracy

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the playing-dirty dept.

Crime 127

B3ryllium writes "Matthew Keys, a Reuters social media editor, is accused of deliberately encouraging Anonymous to hack his previous employer, and even gave them access credentials to do it. An indictment appears to recommend charges that could result in up to 30 years in prison and a $750,000 fine. From the article: 'He is alleged to have identified himself on an internet chat forum as a former Tribune Company employee and then provided members of Anonymous with the login and password to the Tribune Company server. The indictment alleges that Mr Keys had a conversation with the hacker who claimed credit for the defacement of the Los Angeles Times website. The hacker allegedly told him that Tribune Company system administrators had locked him out. Mr Keys allegedly tried to regain access for the hacker, and when he learned that the hacker had made changes to a page, Mr Keys is said to have responded: "Nice."'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

30 years for a non violent crime. (5, Insightful)

lxs (131946) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181207)

Sigh.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (3, Informative)

2.7182 (819680) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181215)

Like Madoff. How do you feel about his sentence?

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (1)

lxs (131946) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181277)

Too high as well, even though he did have a far more serious impact on many peoples' lives.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (4, Insightful)

nbauman (624611) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181465)

Madoff had a serious impact on rich peoples' lives.

That carries a much more severe sentence than merely having a serious impact on ordinary peoples' lives.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (5, Insightful)

Stolpskott (2422670) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181553)

Madoff had a serious impact on the lives of thousands of people who invested in his investment vehicle/Ponzi scheme, including a large number of people who could not afford to lose their investment money.
If you want to be an idiot and assume that only rish people invest money, then I suggest you avoid reading this WSJ article on the arftermath of the Madoff scandal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324339204578171422302043906.html [wsj.com]

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#43185007)

The people that could least afford to lose all their money were the rich.

Can you imagine having to work for a living after 60 years of living on a trust fund? It must be hell.

Anybody, no matter how rich, who had 100% of their money in any one investment deserves what these investors got.

Especially the Madoff investors. They knew he was a criminal, they just thought he was 'their' criminal who would eventually take an insider trading rap on their behalf. Or not, they didn't care, just so they didn't have to accept sub 10% ROI like the 'little people'.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year and a half ago | (#43183745)

Madoff had a serious impact on rich peoples' lives.

Here's my flowchart [billmcgonigle.com] on how this works.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181289)

Like Madoff. How do you feel about his sentence?

I know right! The nerve of some people to suggest that thousands of people's lives and retirement WEREN'T ruined by defacing that website.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181299)

Not ruined enough for such a high sentence. Tough On Crime is a retarded attitude to have.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182861)

How about stealing billions of dollars through fraud? Is that worth 30 years?

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181779)

About the only reason I can think for most Slashdotters wanting Anonymous and their ilk to be treated like third graders who accidentally said "poop", is that they too hope to one day break and enter into a computer system and deface/steal/destroy something and don't want to go to jail for it.

Keep the fuck out of systems where you don't belong. Even said third grader understands that.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181889)

I,m not saying i agree with the "possible sentence" because i don't. But he and anyone else doing stupid stuff like he did, should have checked or even know what the sentence could be if caught. There there to be deterrents not just sentences after the fact. So anyone in this forum now knows the punishment if caught doing what he did. And should avoid doing so. Its not a game anymore.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (4, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181295)

Like Aaron Schwartz. How do you feel about his?

Can we just agree that the system is fucked?

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43182697)

I think that's what he was referring to

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181341)

Like Madoff. How do you feel about his sentence?

Of course 150 years is ridiculous for a non-violent crime, but ...

We're talking $18 Billion. That's a ridiculous amount of money to steal. Ridiculous crime, ridiculous punishment.

Also, Madoff ate it for his accomplices.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (3, Funny)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181471)

Like Madoff. How do you feel about his sentence?

I didn't care one way or another really, but i bet he wished he had asked for a bail out before it all went south.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181657)

Madoff financially ruined the lives of hundreds of people, and adversely affected a lot more than that. By contrast, Key allegedly gave a bunch of hackers access to a newspaper's web site and they defaced it. Rather different.

That being said, Madoff is a sleeze for what he did, and so is Keys for the things he allegedly did. It's the potential penalties if convicted that are utterly ridiculous in the latter case.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (4, Interesting)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181969)

Actually I feel it doesn't accomplish much except to further some prosecutors careers. Don't get me wrong, I am glad it was exposed, and some lgood lawyers out there have done some good work trying to fix the mess....

but the criminal side of things? Meh. Strict penalty...woo hoo. It doesn't actually fix anything. It clearly wasn't a deterrent. Meh.

I would rather he was sentanced to spend several nights a week in soup kitchens for as long as he is medically able, if you really need to sentance him to something... why give him a forced retirement in a cell? Have him do something useful for society. I mean, its not like anyone is going to trust the guy with investments again, and he certainly isn't a physical danger to anyone.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (3, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182119)

I would rather he was sentanced to spend several nights a week in soup kitchens for as long as he is medically able, if you really need to sentance him to something... why give him a forced retirement in a cell? Have him do something useful for society. I mean, its not like anyone is going to trust the guy with investments again, and he certainly isn't a physical danger to anyone.

Exactly. Put him to use in society. Why pay for his incarceration? Fines, wage garnishments, community service, supervision, even a short prison stint are all better. The man is a notorious convicted felon and can't possibly be a harm to society through financial scams - all jailing him does is make us feel better.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182761)

Deterrence is only one part of the role of the law.

Theres this quaint thought that theres also a retributive side, whereby someone who commits a wrong is punished because they actually deserve it.

The role of the justice system isnt to provide a source of laborers to "do something useful", its to provide a way of dealing with those who break society's laws.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (2)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#43183331)

I have to agree here. The idea of justice being dispensed punitively by the state was to sate the desire of families for revenge. If the state is not taking revenge, then families start vendettas. Everyone wins when the punishment, even an over the top one, is being handed out by the judicial system and not by angry people. Madoff may well have gotten a ridiculous sentence, but I would not be surprised if many of the people who lost their retirements became murderous. With not even the pretense of retribution on the part of the state, those feelings could bubble up.

On the other hand... I don't see anyone's life ruined by a site defacement. I do think some prosecutor is trying to make their bones here. The only point I do see in their favor is that cracking and defacement is honestly so easy, and frequently difficult to investigate, that the state is trying to nip the problem by ensuring that we all know that if they do manage to catch you, they're taking it out of your hide.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43182145)

Poor, poor, persecuted, super-wealthy fraudsters.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182789)

That someone could imply that "how wealthy you are" should increase your level of punishment indicates how just how warped the perception of the judicial system has become.

Im just glad that 99% of the folks on slashdot arent lawyers or judges, or we'd be in real trouble.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43182205)

WTF does non-violent have to do with it? You think being punched in the nose and having your wallet stolen is worse than having your entire life savings wiped out, leaving you impoverished?

Sorry, but that's just retarded.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182763)

Overly broad rules aren't a good idea in the justice system, so it would be a mistake to say ALL non-violent crimes should have very short prison terms. But I dont' think OP was suggesting it be applied for all non-violent crimes.

In general, non-violent crimes shouldn't have prison time. Some of exceptional scale should, sure, but we lock up way too many people, despite the fact that violence is really low.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43183455)

I wouldn't let Madoff see day light even if he were 13 years old when he did his thing.
                  But even though Madoff deserves severe sentencing there is one thing that troubles me. He claimed that what he did was no different at all from the entire economic system. I suspect that he is right about that. Our economy and political system seem at times to be dedicated to maximum injustice. In the bad old days it was much easier to see. Obviously many races and nationalities were subjected to the greatest prejudice, violence and disregard in American history. These days the abuses are more subtle and harder to detect but they are still persisting and still evil. Even the most basic assumptions of capitalism are essentially evil. God bestows the ability to be productive and also bestows the inability to be productive. For us to over ride that truth and decide to reward those that we consider more productive while limiting those that can not be productive is a direct violation of all that Christ taught and most likely a violation of Jewish morality as well.
                    But we use poverty and the fear of poverty like an axe or a bull whip. Fear and pain are placed upon those who are unable and the trivial earnings of these people are usurped by the rich as well as the law itself.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181235)

You know if he was a disgruntled employee who gave his door pass to some vandals who messed up the lobby he'd be looking at what slap on the wrist + 6months probation?

Why is the US department of injustice SOOO paranoid about the 10x penalty for anything online vs its offline counter-part.

Disproportionate and stupid. And they didnt learn anything from the Aaron Schwartz debacle. Well we knew that - the online overcharging is endemic. But really this is a whole new century time to get out of the dark ages and rent a clue eh?

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181335)

According to Ars Technica, the maximum sentence for the charges he faces is 10 years and $250,000 - and the sentencing guidelines for this instance, with no history is 0 - 6 months. So, as usual, slashdot blows it out of proportion by either making up numbers or quoting others who made up numbers to get a "oh noes, 30 years for handing out a password" headline.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (5, Insightful)

nbauman (624611) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181523)

Can he still get 0-6 months if he goes to trial?

Or, if he goes to trial, do they throw the book at him and hit him with 10 years?

That's the problem that people were complaining about with Aaron Swartz, and hackers generally. You can't defend yourself -- even when the judges, the prosecutors and the public don't understand the technology. If you try to explain, you wind up with severe sentences.

And in order to get 0-6 months, the other thing they want him to do is rat on his co-conspirators. The problem with this is that he was a journalist who has lots of confidential sources. Do they want him to expose his confidential sources?

Can he still get 0-6 months if he refuses to rat?

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (1)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#43183377)

Sentencing guidelines are for sentencing and sentencing happens after a trial as well as after a plea deal. A Federal judge will ignore those at their professional peril, and honestly, the guidelines are there to make his or her job easier as a judge, and also to keep the jails from overcrowding.

So, while the judges do have some latitude to sentence criminals in their courts, they would have to explain in some detail why a first time offender is getting hard time.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (2)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181759)

Read the effing article will you: "...each count is a max of 10 years and $250k"

That's not blown out of proportion, that's stating the facts.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181907)

Read the effing article will you: "...each count is a max of 10 years and $250k"

That's not blown out of proportion, that's stating the facts.

Jail sentences are almost always concurrent where there are multiple charges relating to one incident. It's the fine that is assessed by 'each count'. And anyway, stating the maximum possible sentence regardless of whether the maximum relates to the particular circumstances is just sensationalist.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (1)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#43183463)

First offenders will almost never get the max sentence. Especially not non-violent offenders. Unless of course, they did something absurdly criminal and detrimental to people's lives, like Madoff did, and his sentence was actually an accumulation of dozens of charges worth of jail time. Defacing a website probably caused an admin to get called in the middle of the night and restore from backup or something. A bad night for an SA and their team, but hardly worth sending someone to jail for 10 years or whatever. The prosecutor will make noise about getting max time, but everyone involved knows that it's going to be a few months and a fine.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (2)

kermidge (2221646) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181427)

"....rent a clue...."

There's no incentive to get one, and there's no need - Hollywood friends, media conglomerates in general, will provide whoever's in office what they need to know as a 'public service' along with campaign contributions. The fear and almost deliberate ignorance and misunderstanding of anything 'cyber' only helps fuel the paranoia of the rulers. What they fear must be squashed, with no recourse to proportionality, rationality, or justice.

IF Keys did this, it's wrong. Thirty years wrong? Yeah, well.... bidness as usual.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182807)

He hasnt gotten 30 years though, and I somehow doubt he will serve 30 years; Im really not sure what all the wild hysteria is about.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43183299)

Im really not sure what all the wild hysteria is about.

You are forgetting this is /.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181451)

You know in California tagging is a potential 3 strikes felony, or was I don't know if the 3 strikes reform bill passed, crack possession was treated much harsher than powdered cocaine possession, manslaughter with a firearm is treated much harsher than manslaughter with an automobile. This idea that somehow computer crimes are treated uniquely harshly is wrong. If you want legal reform that's fine, but look at the whole gamut not just one little slice.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (0)

Biggseye (1520195) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181493)

How about you stop being an apologist for the criminal organization Anonymous. While in this case, the results were minor, the outcome could have been much more drastic. No, It is about time the Anonymous and all the people that actively (Keys) and passively ( you fall into this category). come to grips with the fact that while non violent, they are no less criminals than John Gotti was. They are organized and they are criminals. They reason why you and others that frequent /. see this as a crime worth a stiff penalty is that you have not been on the receiving end of cyber crime. You don't like the corporation so you turn a blind eye to this.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181681)

Then give me examples of "receiving end" of Anonymous' victimless prank which you call it a crime.

America need to stop with this "tough on crime" BS. It is so 20th century. It is being used as a tool for human right abuse.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181855)

In other words, "I don't understand why we have so many people in jail when the crime rate is so low!"

For a website supposedly frequented by smart people, there sure are a lot of not very smart people posting.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43182217)

In other words, "I don't understand why we have so many people in jail when the crime rate is so low!"

Having fun arguing with a straw man?

Well, that said, correlation is not causation, and criminals let out routinely commit crimes again; something is clearly wrong here.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43182283)

In other words, "I don't understand why we have so many people in jail when the crime rate is so low!"

For a website supposedly frequented by smart people, there sure are a lot of not very smart people posting.

In other words, Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. Amirite?

Blackballed (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#43184773)

He will probably never work again anywhere as a journalist. It's hard to make a living as a journalist, exceptionally hard. 6 months probation and being blackballed, while not as bad as 30 years in prison, can still destroy someones life.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181317)

30 years in prison and a $750,000 fine yeah... sounds reasonable. Perhaps we can hack off his arms as well and pee on the stumps?

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182819)

You apparently missed the part where he hasnt actually been sentenced to 30 years.

Talk about conspiracies (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181347)

Ubuntu £inux is making America go broke. Ubuntu's philosophy of openness is a lie because they steal your information and sell it to the Amazon and NSA agents who use it to profile you. To what end nobody knows. Microsoft has tried to prevent Ubuntu from creating the first serious monopoly in computing history but anti trust laws have proven noneffective against the Ubuntu juggernaut. It won't be long until the Canonical tax drives the cost of computers through the roof so only the rich can afford one. Did you know that Ubuntu can't run the hit release Aliens: Colonial Marines? This is a serious offense because Ubuntu could kill the video game industry causing millions to lose jobs. All that in the name of communism. Rest assured that Canonical is no hippie paradise: their phones will contain black ops NSA tracking ribbons that can geolocate you without electricity anywhere in the world, the same technology used to track $20 bills. Some speculate the NSA works for Canonical, but there is no proof. But you have to ask the question.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181373)

Sigh.

I wonder how much time someone would if give if you gave someone your works keys and they went and taped up pictures in the reception area.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181397)

Sigh.

I wonder how much time someone would if give if you gave someone your works keys and they went and taped up pictures in the reception area.

damn it.

Okay, try again.

I wonder how much time you would get if you gave someone your works keys and they went taping up pictures in the reception area?

This seems about that same, except it's online.

0 years for a non violent crime. (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181413)

don't add a 3 when it doesn't exist. The only number to exist at the moment is zero. Wait until this gets to court and we see actual evidence before you start believing even a shred of anything being claimed, in about 3 years.

Right now, this amounts to nothing whatsoever.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (1)

nbauman (624611) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181435)

Like Murdoch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal [wikipedia.org]

Fair is fair. Rupert Murdoch went to jail for hacking. Why shouldn't Aaron Swartz go to jail for hacking?

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181631)

30 years for a non violent crime.

And Jon Corzine is a free man, probably tucking into a brunch of quail eggs and larks' tongues in aspic right about now, a free man with politicians' smooch-marks all over his tuchis.

There are two justice systems. Two economies. Two political systems.

History suggests that this does not end well, and probably not until some heads are separated from some bodies.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43182051)

I'm fully prepared for when the left-crazies want to start killing. I hope they don't get too surprised when the blood they see pouring is their own.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182839)

Did you miss the part where the prosecution doesnt actually get to decide whether hes guilty, or what his sentence is? Or that he hasnt received either a verdict or a sentence?

Im recommending that you get 50 years in prison and a 50 trillion dollar fine. QUICK, someone write a slashdot headline about how unfair it is!

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43182937)

I don't think it has to come to that.

The two economies problem is inarguable. We have to fix that, and I believe it came to light in this last election cycle, and that the elitists got the message that they're going to have to pick their methods to "give a little back" (likely in the way that most profits them) or risk having it taken from them.

As for two justice systems: No. It's the way it's always been. There is one justice system where poor people cannot afford to buy better odds. But all who commit crimes are at risk. And that makes it a decent deterrent. Yes, it pisses us off when people buy better odds and it pays off, but OJ was at great peril and all his money and fame barely squeaked him out of trouble, and one could say deprived him of the money and fame to skate on his next crime for which he is currently incarcerated.

The two political systems problem is being fixed like the two economies. We learned in the last election, that you can buy yourself better odds, but you can't buy a presidential election outright. Romney was a terrible choice for "actual" conservatives, but they threw lots of money at the problem, and still lost.

Their smartest move is probably voting for spending increases that go directly to improvements in national infrastructure, since they get something they value in return for that, but sadly for them, they don't listen to me. They're not stupid, they should know they could get a seriously Liberal president in office next term instead of the moderate they've whined about for 5 years. They may yet adapt.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime. (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year and a half ago | (#43183789)

Hey, man, they defaced a website. It's not like they just raped and murdered some girl.

Matthew Keys (2, Insightful)

mjr167 (2477430) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181219)

Nice name :)

Re:Matthew Keys (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182583)

Well, he ain't Bobby Tables, but close enough.

this is another aaron swartz moment (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181285)

Welcome to the Democratic People's Republic of America.

Re:this is another aaron swartz moment (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43183129)

Well, I can see how it's a moment where someone brazenly and willingly abused the trust of the facilities to which he had access, but when did Matthew Keys exacerbate the situation with his own gargantuan ego and then kill himself due to his inability to emotionally handle a situation he himself created, all due to mental issues he should've been perfectly aware of had he bothered to listen to people who weren't constantly encouraging his actions as a way to vicariously "stick it to the man"?

Informational Integrity? (1)

Akratist (1080775) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181351)

My two cents on the insanely high draconian penalty for this is that we are living in an age where truth has become so malleable than anything which even remotely threatens the apparent integrity of that truth becomes a greater offense than any actual damages committed by that act. In this sense, it is a sort of heresy against the proto-religion of the state and media, where hackers are not unlike astronomers pointing out that the sun does not revolve around the earth. Instead, they are pointing out that the official messaging is so false that it doesn't deserve much more than a joke headline. The same sort of thinking applies to Wikileaks -- everyone overseas pretty much knew what was going on already (I would guess that the Afghanistanis are smart enough to figure out that a gunship blew their family away, not a random lightning bolt), but what they did called into question the "official" flow of information, and ultimately, the "religion of the state." This really isn't much different from the thinking of the Soviet Union back in the day -- anyone disputing the official message was a far greater threat that someone stealing a truck or smuggling goods (the SU had a surprisingly high crime rate in spite of their draconian controls). We've just now gone digital with all this.

Re:Informational Integrity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43182689)

This is so insightful , I wish I could up-mod it more than once.

Very odd comment (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181359)

The guardian article [guardian.co.uk] on this makes an odd comment:

A Reuters spokeswoman said the company was reviewing the matter but pointed out that the alleged action occured more than a year before Keys joined.

If that's true how did he obtain the data in the first place, and how does this mesh with claiming to be a former employee? Did he hack the site first, claim to be a former employee, give the data to Anon and then join the company or what? Or is something being miscommunicated here?

Re:Very odd comment (3, Informative)

drzhivago (310144) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181481)

Because it wasn't Reuters that was hacked. It was the Tribune Company.

The person in question currently works at Reuters.

Re:Very odd comment (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181505)

Matthew Keys, a Reuters social media editor, is accused of deliberately encouraging Anonymous to hack his previous employer

Reading FTW!

Re:Very odd comment (1)

nbauman (624611) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181573)

(1) Keys worked for the LAT, and allegedly gave Anonymous the password

(2) Then Keys joined Reuters. The alleged crime was done before he joined Reuters.

Criminal investigation? (1)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181365)

It doesn't exactly describe how his involvement was discovered from the standpoint of criminal investigation.

Assume Reuters contacted the authorities. Then, the FBI and the Reuters IT staff were able to find out that Keys's ID was used. What's the next step to discovering this dialogue with the hacker? Were they both so clueless as to communicate via g-mail or something?

Re:Criminal investigation? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182163)

IRC plants? Taps on the IRC network? Ridiculous levels of deep packet inspection and logging at ISPs? None of these seem beyond what the country does right now.

Anonymous = honeypot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181371)

Anonymous = honeypot, if password was given what that has to do with hacking?
Looks like another big news media attempt to set precedence in controlled environment for future 'similar cases' they are defining punishment guidelines and scare potential bad employees. If hat would be true anonymous it would NEVER come out.

Anonymous is not a honeypot (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#43184753)

However, there are probably individuals within Anonymous who are snitches and if you're dumb enough to hang out with them and give them your dox and real info don't be surprised if when they commit a crime they say you did it. Blackhat hackers are not the kind of people who typically are trustable with information or with secrets. Who is surprised?

You guys are seriously FU (1)

Psychotria (953670) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181379)

The United States of America. I would be ashamed if I were a citizen of that country.

And, the "story" by Sam Biddle? Wow, talk about sensationalism. Live updates on this earth-shattering, breaking news! I am on the edge of my seat.

Re:You guys are seriously FU (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182699)

I'm ashamed people of your caliber are on Slashdot.

allegedly (1)

IWantMoreSpamPlease (571972) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181457)

I'm seeing this word used a lot here. "Allegedly", hopefully that means his involvement is still uncertain. As in, he hasn't been pronounced guilty before he's had his chance to prove his innocence.

Re:allegedly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181535)

"encouraging Anonymous to hack his previous employer, and even gave them access credentials to do it."

You mean they "forgot to change password" ?
When firing an employee, it should be the ex-employer responsibility to change every password that the fired employee might have touched!
So why 30years for something that the company itself is responsible?!

Firing employees and not changing password is ASKING FOR TROUBLES!
It's like a divorce, but leaving the key to your ex, thinking "she won't use it..."....

Re:allegedly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43183133)

"encouraging Anonymous to hack his previous employer, and even gave them access credentials to do it."

You mean they "forgot to change password" ? When firing an employee, it should be the ex-employer responsibility to change every password that the fired employee might have touched! So why 30years for something that the company itself is responsible?!

Firing employees and not changing password is ASKING FOR TROUBLES! It's like a divorce, but leaving the key to your ex, thinking "she won't use it..."....

I thought the same thing when I read the story.

Re:allegedly (1)

Psychotria (953670) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181551)

I'm seeing this word used a lot here. "Allegedly", hopefully that means his involvement is still uncertain.

As in, he hasn't been pronounced guilty before he's had his chance to prove his innocence.

But, it's the USA. He *has* been pronounced guilty. As can be clearly read at http://gizmodo.com/5990635/reuters-employee-exposed-as-anonymous-agent [gizmodo.com] (with updates... where is the RSS feed?) it's just a matter of time. The verdict has already been reached. And the alleged culprit will get 30 years imprisonment for scribbling all over the book of his kindergarten friend. This is a very serious thing. The only way the breaking news could be more enthralling and nail-biting is if the death penalty was applicable to scribbling. Oh. Wait. 30 years? The death penalty would probably be too humane.

Re:allegedly (2)

jittles (1613415) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181793)

I'm seeing this word used a lot here. "Allegedly", hopefully that means his involvement is still uncertain.

As in, he hasn't been pronounced guilty before he's had his chance to prove his innocence.

But, it's the USA. He *has* been pronounced guilty. As can be clearly read at http://gizmodo.com/5990635/reuters-employee-exposed-as-anonymous-agent [gizmodo.com] (with updates... where is the RSS feed?) it's just a matter of time. The verdict has already been reached. And the alleged culprit will get 30 years imprisonment for scribbling all over the book of his kindergarten friend. This is a very serious thing. The only way the breaking news could be more enthralling and nail-biting is if the death penalty was applicable to scribbling. Oh. Wait. 30 years? The death penalty would probably be too humane.

The media also said Casey Anthony was guilty of murdering her daughter Caylee [wikipedia.org] but I don't recall her being convicted. People can and do act with free will from time to time. Anyway, everyone is saying that this is an insane sentence for a non-violent crime. I hate to break it to you, but there can be worse things than violence (except murder, obviously). I'm not saying that this case is worse than getting your butt kicked at a bar, but we have no idea just how much access that guy gave away. It's possible that through that compromised server the hacker could have gotten access to far more damaging data. Who knows. Who cares? The guy broke the law, without a doubt. Let him go on trial and we can see what his crime merits after the evidence has been presented.

Re:allegedly (1)

jittles (1613415) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181805)

Well let me retract that, its not obvious that HE committed a crime, but that the hacker did. If there is evidence to suggest that he should be tried, then he should go to trial.

Re:allegedly (1)

Psychotria (953670) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181577)

Also, how is he going to prove his innocence? He shouldn't have to prove his innocence because that is not how things should work. The burden of proof is not on him. It's on the prosecutor. But, the prosecutor has lots of evidence such as easily faked IRC logs, so it's basically an open and shut case.

Anonymous honeypot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181587)

Anonymous - honeypot, if password was given what that has to do with hacking?
Looks like another big news media attempt to set precedence in controlled environment for future similar cases defining punishment guidelines and scare potential bad employees. If hat would be true anonymous it would NEVER come out.

Minefield (1, Interesting)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181601)

30 years. Now that US militarized the internet, any small mistake, or that looked from very far aggresive move will have that kind of punishment, as they see anything related as war crimes. Even falling in a social engineering trick puts you into the enemy of the state category.

Meanwhile bankers that steal billons or just screw the entire world economy, are too big to jail [rollingstone.com] or just gets even a lot more money from government.

And it's already to late to change anything of this. Any try to fix the system will get people 30 years of jail too.

Re:Minefield (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181723)

war crimes?

I think you're confused, they don't investigate war crimes - nor do they treat enemy combatants as prisoners of war.

Re:Minefield (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year and a half ago | (#43183671)

Hacking into someone else property is not a mistake.

Re:Minefield (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43183787)

He's not going to get 30 years. It's not even a remote possibility.

Re:Minefield (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#43184731)

30 years. Now that US militarized the internet, any small mistake, or that looked from very far aggresive move will have that kind of punishment, as they see anything related as war crimes. Even falling in a social engineering trick puts you into the enemy of the state category.

Meanwhile bankers that steal billons or just screw the entire world economy, are too big to jail [rollingstone.com] or just gets even a lot more money from government.

And it's already to late to change anything of this. Any try to fix the system will get people 30 years of jail too.

It's not hard to avoid small mistakes. It's not hard to not incriminate yourself. It's not hard to not get entrapped. If you hang around hackers you will go to jail, period.

Personal Favorite (0)

DaMattster (977781) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181607)

I know this is somewhat off topic but I'm reminded of when the Hillsborough Baptist Church taunted Anonymous by daring them to hack the church's website. Spokespeople proclaimed that the website was invulnerable to attack because it was 'Protected by God.' If my recollection is correct, Anonymous pwned the website in all of five minutes. This gave me one helluva laugh! If that created an argument for atheism, I've not heard a better one.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181721)

What happened to, "Not your personal army"?

If he was more savvy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43181781)

Could have used pastebin to "save" a security paste ; )

His passwords should not have worked (1, Informative)

utoddl (263055) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182189)

So how would his knowledge of passwords from when he used to work there be of any use? Do they not immediately change all the passwords he had when he left the company? Did they let him keep his keys to the building as well? The real villain here is the victim's IT department.

Re:His passwords should not have worked (1)

B3ryllium (571199) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182649)

It sounds like the username shared was "ngarcia", not his own. So he was sharing an account that he created and remembered the password to, not one that was technically his own. If he did it at all, that is.

Re:His passwords should not have worked (1)

sabt-pestnu (967671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182741)

He created an account with network privileges on his own? So either IT authorized it and failed to close it with his "official" account, or they didn't authorize it but created circumstances where it could happen. Either way, an IT failure.

An alternate possibility is that he got credentials of a coworker and shared those. IT (and said coworker) being unaware that the account was no longer secure, they wouldn't automatically secure it on Keys' departure. That scenario is a good "don't share your password even with your boss or friends" example.

hacking? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182325)

I don't call that hacking, I call it logging in so a server. I do it every day at work, lol. OMG I'm a hacker! OH NOZ!

Re:hacking? (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year and a half ago | (#43182707)

If you haven't figured out by now that Anonymous is a joke, then you might be on Slashdot.

Re:hacking? (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year and a half ago | (#43183629)

You have permission. They do not.

Re:hacking? (1)

Lithdren (605362) | about a year and a half ago | (#43184687)

So its unauthorized access to a private server. Big deal. Still not 'hacking'.

30 fucking years!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43182497)

I can kill someone and rob a bank and still get less!

Re:30 fucking years!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43183407)

mmm.. no.

Compared to where you will be sent and where he will be sent (for nonviolent), your multiple times of being raped and getting beat down will seem like an eternity. In the meantime, he will be eating his ice cream cone and reading the local newspaper about some convicted armed robber getting raped for 4th time (you) who had to be put in isolation and on suicide watch.

Ya want to play (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year and a half ago | (#43183605)

Ya want to play? Then be prepared to pay the penalty.

Braindead Yanks and 'proportionality' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43184059)

This discussion is immediately hijacked by careful trolls who suggest to braindead Yanks that all 'non-violent' crimes are similar.

The real issue is one of 'proportionality'- the idea that decent justice only allows proportional punishments for crimes. The American justice system is NOT decent. It is based on fear and abuse of power. Essentially, American betas are told that every crime should have an unlimited maximum, so that the prosecutors and judges may have complete discretion in leveraging plea-bargains and choosing sentences.

There can be not logic in the argument that states "if some financial criminal deserves 30 years jail for stealing billions, so does the person that helps deface the website of a state propaganda outlet, because both are 'non-violent'". And yet, Slashdot betas have allowed this discussion to be derailed by exactly such trolling.

The rest of the world EXPECTS every crime in the USA to have a potential sentence in the 10s of years. We think of you as savages. Dribbling vicious morons who LOVE to talk endlessly about 'prison rape'.

There are Muslims serving obscene prison time in the USA for providing money to kids in need in Palestine. It is NOT denied by the US State department that this is where the money raised by the charity went. Doesn't matter. The racist depravities that rule Israel (and the USA) wanted them in prison, so the laws of the USA were twisted in court to make charity donations to children a terrible crime, when those children regularly find themselves in the sniper sites of Israeli death-squads.

American newspapers are the mouth of the beast. They inform beta Americans, for instance, that it is a GOOD thing for team Obama to recruit, train, arm and transport an extremist terrorist Muslim army for the destruction of SECULAR Syria. When you deface the site of one of these propaganda machines, it is as if you placed your hand over Obama's mouth- and do you really think they are going to let you get away with that?

All decent nations seek to have proportional penalties for 'crimes'. America is proud that it does not. What does this tell you?

He's an idiot, how quaint. (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#43184715)

Why would he be so stupid to even get involved in that stuff and not expect to be treated as a terrorist?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?