Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Reuters' Matthew Keys Accused of Anonymous Conspiracy

Posted by samzenpus on from the playing-dirty dept.

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."'"

13 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. 30 years for a non violent crime. by lxs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sigh.

    1. Re:30 years for a non violent crime. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:30 years for a non violent crime. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:30 years for a non violent crime. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like Aaron Schwartz. How do you feel about his?

      Can we just agree that the system is fucked?

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:30 years for a non violent crime. by nbauman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:30 years for a non violent crime. by nbauman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    6. Re:30 years for a non violent crime. by Stolpskott · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

    7. Re:30 years for a non violent crime. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:30 years for a non violent crime. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:30 years for a non violent crime. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Madoff had a serious impact on rich peoples' lives.

      Here's my flowchart on how this works.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  2. Matthew Keys by mjr167 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nice name :)

  3. this is another aaron swartz moment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Welcome to the Democratic People's Republic of America.

  4. Very odd comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The guardian article 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?