Reuters' Matthew Keys Accused of Anonymous Conspiracy

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."'"

Comments

30 years for a non violent crime.

[lxs]

Sigh.

Re:30 years for a non violent crime.

[2.7182]

Like Madoff. How do you feel about his sentence?

Re:30 years for a non violent crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[L4t3r4lu5]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[kermidge]

"....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.

[nbauman]

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.

[Nyder]

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.

[nbauman]

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.

[Stolpskott]

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

Re:30 years for a non violent crime.

[PopeRatzo]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[oh_my_080980980]

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.

[TheCarp]

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.

[MightyYar]

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.

[tnk1]

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.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Madoff had a serious impact on rich peoples' lives.

Here's my flowchart on how this works.

Matthew Keys

[mjr167]

Nice name :)

Very odd comment

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Very odd comment

[drzhivago]

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

The person in question currently works at Reuters.

Re:Minefield

[gl4ss]

war crimes?

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

Re:allegedly

[jittles]

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 (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 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.