Slashdot Mirror


Barrett Brown, Formerly of Anonymous, Sentenced To 63 Months

An anonymous reader writes with news that a journalist linked to Anonymous, Barret Brown, has been sentenced. "Barrett Brown, a journalist formerly linked to the hacking group Anonymous, was sentenced Thursday to over five years in prison, or a total of 63 months. Ahmed Ghappour, Brown's attorney, confirmed to Ars that Brown's 28 months already served will count toward the sentence. That leaves 34 months, or nearly three years, left for him to serve. In April 2014, Brown took a plea deal admitting guilt on three charges: "transmitting a threat in interstate commerce," for interfering with the execution of a search warrant, and to being "accessory after the fact in the unauthorized access to a protected computer." Brown originally was indicted in Texas federal court in December 2012 on several counts, including accusations that he posted a link from one Internet relay chat channel, called #Anonops, to another channel under his control, called #ProjectPM. The link led to private data that had been hijacked from intelligence firm Strategic Forecasting, or Statfor."

7 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. There is no anonymity by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've been on the scene since the '70s, and as much as I hope that my real identity to not be revealed to the world, I understand that once I post something online I take a risk (calculated or otherwise) of having my real identity exposed

    There is no anonymity online or offline

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:There is no anonymity by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A lot of these guys get caught because they open their yaps. A lot of us old timers from the early days never got caught. When the 414's were taken down I know several people that avoided it simply because they actually listened to the "trust no one" mantra. Just like how the guys that took over WTTW never got caught because they did NOT open their big fat mouths.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

      So a tip from someone old..... earning "cred" is for noobs. Keep your mouth shut and you really reduce the risk of getting caught.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  2. Be afraid by gophther · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not a fan of anonymous, but you should be very afraid when you look at these charges. This rather random assortment of charges that make you go "huh?" shows that the thinking went like this: 1) Get this guy 2) Charge this guy for things you don't charge all other people who do the same things. 3) Profit!!!

    1. Re:Be afraid by AHuxley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Re "This rather random assortment of charges that make you go "huh?"
      The US press and media thought it had it all after the Pentagon Papers

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#The_Supreme_Court_allows_further_publication
      Now the US press has to try and stay how many hops away before publishing or commenting?
      Very chilling for the US press.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  3. It's unfortunate. by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IMO he had a good case and could have won but I understand him taking the plea.

    He didn't know the information was there in the link that led to this whole thing and the "threats" were hyperbole at the best. He probably couldn't afford a good attorney and he was looking at decades in prison. Typical FBI strategy is charge them with everything in the book so they plea to lessor charge you actually want.

    It's a travesty what they did to him.

  4. You can't trust any hacking charges now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    He was accused of hacking. We learned from the recent NSA Snowden leaks, that NSA hacks computers, but sends the data to scapegoat targets and collects the data as it crosses the public network.

    So when you see a high anti-US person conveniently on a hacking charge, you have to immediately ask if he's been fitted up for the crime, if he's one of these scapegoat targets.

    http://boingboing.net/2015/01/18/ecstatic-nsa-spooks-delight-in.html

    "But the loot isn't delivered directly to ROC's IP address. Rather, it is routed to a so-called Scapegoat Target. That means that stolen information could end up on someone else's servers, making it look as though they were the perpetrators."

    There's quite a few of these that have raise eyebrows, Pirate Bay founder hacks Sweden, supposedly to look for extradition warrants, and yet leaves a trail of evidence back to himself?? Handy, who gains most from that? Not him, there is no extradition treaty between Laos and Sweden. North Korea hacks Sony, NSA justifies its surveillance program. Who gains most?

    I have my doubts.