PDA

View Full Version : Reuters employee indicted for conspiring with Anonymous members




tangent4ronpaul
03-15-2013, 12:54 PM
http://www.techspot.com/news/51963-reuters-employee-indicted-for-conspiring-with-anonymous-members.html

An employee of Reuters has been indicted by the US Justice Department on the grounds that he helped members of the loose-knit hactivist group Anonymous deface the Los Angeles Times website. 26-year-old Matthew Keys of Secaucus, New Jersey, was charged in the Eastern District of California with conspiracy to transmit information to damage a protected computer, transmitting information to damage a protected computer and attempted transmission of information to damage a protected computer.

According to the DOJ, Keys used to work at KTXL FOX 40 in Sacramento, California as a web producer. He was fired from the company in October 2010 and allegedly handed over passwords belonging to the television station’s parent company, the Tribune Company, to members of Anonymous in December of that same year. From there, the Justice Department says Keys encouraged the group to deface the Los Angeles Times website which is owned by Tribune Company.

Keys is the deputy social media editor at Reuters so naturally, he took to Twitter when news of the charges broke. In a tweet dated March 14, Keys said he was fine and that he found out about the incident the same way everyone else did – from Twitter. He said he was going to take a break that evening and it would be business as usual the next day.

If convicted on all three charges, he could be looking at up to 25 years in prison and a fine of up to $750,000. As the DOJ reminds us, Keys is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

-t

thoughtomator
03-15-2013, 12:56 PM
Reuters being a de facto government press agency, this lends credibility to the theory that Anonymous is a government black op.

Interesting how the computers of the state press are considered "protected" (I presume the implication is everyone else is not protected).

sailingaway
03-15-2013, 12:57 PM
Reason has a different take on this. They said that this guy did a stupid thing and let someone have his password at his old employer and they changed a headline. So he is now being faced with twentyfive years in jail. (I think it was 25 years.) Obviously it was wrong and vandalism, but shouldn't some aspect of 'actual damage' play into this?

ninepointfive
03-15-2013, 12:59 PM
Reason has a different take on this. They said that this guy did a stupid thing and let someone have his password at his old employer and they changed a headline. So he is now being faced with twentyfive years in jail. (I think it was 25 years.) Obviously it was wrong and vandalism, but shouldn't some aspect of 'actual damage' play into this?

25 years? eee gads

brushfire
03-15-2013, 01:01 PM
They'll pull the same sh!t they did on Aaron Swartz... Guaranteed.

Seems you get less time for rape and murder - go figure.

TonySutton
03-15-2013, 01:03 PM
This should be handled between The Tribune and Mr Keys. Absolutely no reason for the govt to be involved beyond supplying a judge for the civil court.

HOLLYWOOD
03-15-2013, 01:07 PM
wow
25 years in prison and a fine of up to $750,000Basically, 'You are Uncle Sam's Slave for life', there's no way you are going to repay that $3/4s of million in fines with the free time you have left.

sailingaway
03-15-2013, 01:08 PM
Matthew Keys, 26, of Secaucus, N.J., was charged in the Eastern District of California with one count each of conspiracy to transmit information to damage a protected computer, transmitting information to damage a protected computer and attempted transmission of information to damage a protected computer. …

Each of the two substantive counts carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The conspiracy count carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/15/business-as-usual-at-doj-threatening-guy

tangent4ronpaul
03-15-2013, 01:22 PM
Why isn't the company being charged with failure to protect a "protected" computer? I mean the guy was FIRED and his password still worked a year later??? WTF?

-t