Reuters Employee Indicted For Conspiring With Anonymous

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I have a great idea, let's throw away a promising career so you can get in good with Anonymous. Maybe Anonymous will help the idiot out now that he is facing 30 years in the slammer and a $750,000 fine. :rolleyes:

The three-count indictment alleges that in December 2010 Keys provided members of the hacker group Anonymous with log-in credentials for a computer server belonging to KTXL FOX 40’s corporate parent, the Tribune Company. According to the indictment, Keys identified himself on an Internet chat forum as a former Tribune Company employee and provided members of Anonymous with a login and password to the Tribune Company server. After providing log-in credentials, Keys allegedly encouraged the Anonymous members to disrupt the website.
 
Must not of been as promising from his perspective; I mean this guy willingly gave away login passwords which shows he was either pissed off or disillusioned with the company itself. Secondly, the article is pretty vague in reference to whether he was till employed with the company while conducting these activities or whether he was fired or let go and then proceeded with his actions. There's too many holes here to base any informative opinion as to his motives, and worst of all we're getting this information from the department of justice. And when was the last time the government has been completely sincere and transparent with information lately. Iono, I need a second article to figure out what the hell is going on....
 
The Gizmodo articles been updating since this morning, interesting to follow. I agree that this is not what one would consider brilliant and then to do it so openly (open to the point where it makes me suspicious cause most of us "would" know better, let alone someone from Anon). Shadyness all around on this one until a lot more info comes into the open.
 
He gave them access to a Fox Network. Why would anyone want to access that, seriously. WTF.
 
Yes obey your overlords. You are just an ant. Shut up and go to work, then die. Do not fight against what you think is wrong. It is futile to resist.
 
Its for defacing, I believe, the LA Times website for a whooping 30 minutes (giving confidential access info to someone from Anon so they could do this). The admins noticed it and fixed it within 30 minutes, Keys then goes on to offer the offender to find them another access (that is where the chat log ends that was released). 30 years and 3 quarters of a million fine for something that didn't even cause any major issues, I can see maybe probation. I'm betting they wanna see what info they can get from him on Anon. Ruined his life to get back at a former employer, I think I prefer to move forward (or at least remain try to "anonymous" :p).
 
Guys like that are heroes. Without them, IT security jobs would vanish, anti-virus/malware companies would dry up. The internet would not be a cesspool that requires huge amounts of manhours to babysit.

Hopefully, they give him a job where he can do even more benefit to humanity, like managing a child prostitution ring.
 
Possible 30 years, doesn't mean that they won't try to work something out or plea out.
 
He won't spend 5 years.

Instead he'll end up like this guy.

showbiz-aaron-swartz.jpg
 
30 years? Fucking shit justice system..

Ours is better than most. I watched a documentary on a Columbian serial killer that murdered (confirmed, bodies) over 140 boys. He got a maximum of 40 years and is likely to get automatic parole after 12.

So yeah, it may suck some times, but at least it isn't that bad.
 
Ours is better than most. I watched a documentary on a Columbian serial killer that murdered (confirmed, bodies) over 140 boys. He got a maximum of 40 years and is likely to get automatic parole after 12.

So yeah, it may suck some times, but at least it isn't that bad.

Who the fuck do you work for?
 
pretty sad that you can spend more time in jail for helping a hacker than killing someone
 
pretty sad that you can spend more time in jail for helping a hacker than killing someone
How do you figure? He can spend up to 30 years, most likely less than 5, while a murderer can spend up to life with most getting 25-life. Of course there is the exception to the rule as always.
 
Everything is a matter of degrees. I guess if you think about it, that is longer then most people convicted of murder in the second degree serve (about 15-25 years, depending on the state) and if he gets some lighter deal, most cases of manslaughter serve about 5-7 years on a 15 year conviction. Then again, your lawyer and the type of plea you take have a lot to do with it, if it goes to trail chances are you'll never see light again. Recently saw a case where the cops knew the guy did it, but couldn't prove it so they offered him 5 years. He didn't take it and it went to trail where he was convicted. He only got like 15 years since they worked out some kind of a deal if he showed them where the body was and this in the US.

Hackers however tend to get the book thrown at them unless they can dish out dirt on other hackers (hence the saving of chat transcripts).
 
Ours is better than most. I watched a documentary on a Columbian serial killer that murdered (confirmed, bodies) over 140 boys. He got a maximum of 40 years and is likely to get automatic parole after 12.

So yeah, it may suck some times, but at least it isn't that bad.


Hmm, if it isn't from British Columbia, Canada, then it should be Colombian.

If it is Colombian, then you are sorely mistaken if you think that it is anywhere near comparable to a USA prison, in South American prisons those kind of criminals do not come out alive, at all, they are killed by the other inmates after some torture.

Venezuelan here, so yeah...
 
...Hackers however tend to get the book thrown at them unless they can dish out dirt on other hackers (hence the saving of chat transcripts).

It all depends on who ya work for.
 
He gave them access to a Fox Network. Why would anyone want to access that, seriously. WTF.

Paraphrasing Reagan: There's so much shit in that stable that there has to be a pony under it! :D
 
RTFM:

Keys could get a max of 25y. Unlikely. As a web designer for a TV Station, he had permissions to the corporate Tribune server.

The site that was hacked was the LA Times, arguably the most liberal newspaper in the USA. Not the Hated Fox News. Think more like hacking Michael Moore's website.

But WTF? Why does it matter who's main server he wanted to shut down? If it was Cola-Cola or Florida Orange Growers, DOES IT FK'G MATTER???/

The guy is a dick and loser. Sadly he will most likely get a slap on the wrist for betraying his fellow employees.
 
I don't see that he did anything that would justify the use of violent force by the state.

Giving out a username and password is not the same as actually using that username to gain unauthorized access to a system. At best, it would be a contractual issue if he signed a contract not to give out his username and password but that is a monetary issue and does not justify violence.

It pretty much goes to show you that in the United $tates of America, justice is for those who can most afford it; someone who rapes someone or who murders someone would get less time in the industrial prison complex.

In addition, I would question the competence of any company that does not immediately revoke credentials when someone leaves the company. In addition, no site was "hacked". Logging in using a username and password you got from someone else is not hacking or even cracking.
 
Sending armed men in uniforms to forcibly imprison someone is violence.

I guess that's true, but it'd be rather unintelligent to send unarmed people to apprehend a suspect. That'd put them at great risk if the fight or flight instinct in human psychology swings toward fight and the suspect is him or herself armed.
 
I don't see that he did anything that would justify the use of violent force by the state.

Giving out a username and password is not the same as actually using that username to gain unauthorized access to a system. At best, it would be a contractual issue if he signed a contract not to give out his username and password but that is a monetary issue and does not justify violence.

It pretty much goes to show you that in the United $tates of America, justice is for those who can most afford it; someone who rapes someone or who murders someone would get less time in the industrial prison complex.

In addition, I would question the competence of any company that does not immediately revoke credentials when someone leaves the company. In addition, no site was "hacked". Logging in using a username and password you got from someone else is not hacking or even cracking.

Scenario -

IT guy at Toyota USA. Pissed off at the world. Gets into the ECM databank and puts an easter egg in the files. On Jan 1, 2014, all the cars go into no-emissions mode and spew 1,000 times the normal pollutants. This is entirely possible. All the files are stored together, and there is surplus ROM area in ECM's to permit future upgrades.

He didn't flash those cars. He had permission to be there.

How much of a crime did he commit? It would cost at least $1 billion to reflash all the cars and rewrite all the ECM files.

People who have upper level permissions for large computer systems have a critical job, and a moral responsibility to protect others.

And that's not even a nuclear powerplant, or a defense RADAR.
 
Scenario -

IT guy at Toyota USA. Pissed off at the world. Gets into the ECM databank and puts an easter egg in the files. On Jan 1, 2014, all the cars go into no-emissions mode and spew 1,000 times the normal pollutants. This is entirely possible. All the files are stored together, and there is surplus ROM area in ECM's to permit future upgrades.

He didn't flash those cars. He had permission to be there.

How much of a crime did he commit? It would cost at least $1 billion to reflash all the cars and rewrite all the ECM files.

People who have upper level permissions for large computer systems have a critical job, and a moral responsibility to protect others.

And that's not even a nuclear powerplant, or a defense RADAR.

The difference is that Matthew Keys didn't actually deface the website here. He wasn't the one who made the unauthorized access. All he did was give out a username and password. The individual who used that username and password to actually login is the one who has trespassed and who should be punished because they are the ones who have initiated force against someone else's property.
 
Sending armed men in uniforms to forcibly imprison someone is violence.

Your interpretation of violence is skewed badly by your hate for the "United $tates of America."

Save the drama queen stuff cases that deserve it. No one kicked dudes ass, there was no police brutality. He was tweeting from work hours after he was indicted. Yeah...he was a victim of forcible imprisonment and violence. :rolleyes:


If I give you the keys to a house so you can burglarize it, I am guilty of a crime. If I give you a gun to shoot someone, I am guilty of a crime. Etc. etc. etc. Just because YOU don't want it to be a crime, doesn't mean it isn't.

Kid will snitch out Anon, get a sweet deal, probably probation. His career is over though.
 
The difference is that Matthew Keys didn't actually deface the website here. He wasn't the one who made the unauthorized access. All he did was give out a username and password. The individual who used that username and password to actually login is the one who has trespassed and who should be punished because they are the ones who have initiated force against someone else's property.

That isnt a difference. It wont be hard to prove intent of malice. Why else would he give it out? Thats the same as committing the crime. If you are the driver of a car in a bank robbery should you be let off the hook easy? Or if you loaded the gun and gave it to someone who you knew was likely to shoot someone should you be let off the hook?
You people kill me sympathizing with folks like these. Corporate espionage plain and simple.
 
The difference is that Matthew Keys didn't actually deface the website here. He wasn't the one who made the unauthorized access. All he did was give out a username and password. The individual who used that username and password to actually login is the one who has trespassed and who should be punished because they are the ones who have initiated force against someone else's property.

honestly that's like saying, I'm giving north korea nukes, now if they somehow decide to blow the US out of the face of the earth it does not mean I am responsible. - "All I did was handed them bombs for educational purposes, come on, why on earth would I be at fault if they used it, duh" , that is really not thinking straight dude,lol
 
I think update #6 is very telling, Sabu is mentioned which through the chain of events could of led to Keys, but also that the Feds maybe looking for something else. The press gets a lot of protection under the law, but if you have a member there of on another crime and you happen to find information regarding another crime (which typically can't be used, but can provide info). Keys first post was about Anon, there is evidence that he maybe on some level in with them, what if the Feds want an outside few by a reported with inside access that have a habit of keeping good records to get a better look at Anon then they have even had before. Sure Sabu helped expose members, but Keys may have been doing research and taking detailed notes, where Sabu may have been holding back, Keys would of been recording everything and then censor when he writes his article.
 
Nicely written article on Vice, but I do have to say we receive login credentials in trust or off hand, that doesn't mean we should share them just because we become disillusioned. That in and of itself is a crime, but I would say more akin to vandalism (which would also be against most companies code of conduct and result in them loosing their jobs). Now we need to wait and see if we have all the information, did he actually give up the login credentials or did he just compliment a member of Anon on something he did (the chat log to me isn't clear). He has been accused, not yet convicted.
 
Nicely written article on Vice, but I do have to say we receive login credentials in trust or off hand, that doesn't mean we should share them just because we become disillusioned. That in and of itself is a crime, but I would say more akin to vandalism (which would also be against most companies code of conduct and result in them loosing their jobs). Now we need to wait and see if we have all the information, did he actually give up the login credentials or did he just compliment a member of Anon on something he did (the chat log to me isn't clear). He has been accused, not yet convicted.

I'm not debating that he is innocent or shouldn't be punished, he's going to have to be accountable for his actions of course. But the point I want to make is that companies who are laundering 800 billion in cartel money, not mention also funneling money for Al-Qaeda and they get a slap on the wrist. But you look in comparison to this guys actions and what he did, and he might serve 25 years depending on whether or not the government wants to make a message out of this guy. It's liberty and justice for 'some'.
 
Even the Vatican is guilty of laundering organized crime (and god knows who else's) money. There are two sayings I can think of, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." -Lord Acton and "How do you know power corrupts when you've never had any." -Trent Reznor.
 
Finally, an article that really fleshes out the details of this story, while also giving it an insightful personal touch. So judging everything going here, the potential punishment doesn't fit the crime imo...

http://www.vice.com/read/the-reuter...-anonymous-and-got-burned?utm_source=vicefbus

Somebody who betrays the trust given to them is a lowlife scum.

Let's put it this way:

Would you hire him?

Would you send him money for goods?

Would you let him watch your kids?

He's a prick.

He's not a hacker, nor are most the modern interwebbythingy vandals.

Peter Norton was a hacker. Bill Gates was a hacker. Woz was a hacker.

Hackers push the limits of what is thought to be possible with technology. They aren't criminals or malcontents.
 
Back
Top