FBI Put Hactivist Jeremy Hammond On a Terrorist Watchlist

blottsie writes The Federal Bureau of Investigation put Anonymous hacker Jeremy Hammond on a secret terrorist watchlist, according to confidential records obtained by the Daily Dot. The records further reveal how the FBI treats cybercrimes and shines a rare light on the expanding definitions of terrorism used by U.S. law enforcement agencies.

Comments

As always the definition of a terrorist

[waspleg]

is anyone that they see as threatening TLA power - particularly for the FBI (communism anyone?).

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[davydagger]

basicly the definition of terrorism as defined by the government is nothing more than "dissent", which is the real crime, and acts of actual violence against persons and destruction of property are merely secondary offenses to the main crime of dissent.

Tell yourself again, we live in a free country.

Also, ten years for at worst is some jackass stunt. Gets put in solidarity for being a communist. Related is that as soon as a similar man, weev gets let of prison, he goes full on NatSoc, after charges are mysteriously dropped, and going out to get a nazi tattoo.

Does this smell like the government propping up fascism, or does it smell like the government propping up fascism?

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

The international Communist conspiracy was a threat to all free countries. Yes, the government agencies fighting it resorted to illegal and immoral means (Pinochet anyone?), but that doesn't mean the threat was imaginary.
Today, international Islamist terrorism is a threat to all free countries. Yes, the government agencies fighting it have resorted to illegal and immoral means (GItmo, domestic NSA snooping) but that doesn't mean the threat is imaginary.

I think the problem here is one of perverse incentives. Every law enforcement agency in the West has learned that the way to get funding and other resources is to link your activities to fighting terrorism. Kinda like how the magic words in getting science funding include "climate change", no matter how tenuous the connection to your actual research.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Frobnicator]

basicly the definition of terrorism as defined by the government is nothing more than "dissent"

Did you read the article? According to the definition issued by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) in March 2013 ... an individual may be nominated to the TSDB watchlist for suspected acts [... that threats to society ... ] or "influence the policy of a government."

If your suspected action threatens to influence government policy, you're good enough for a terrorist watchlist.

Let's throw all of Washington DC into gitmo. They're threatening to influence government policy. Terrorists, the lot of them.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you take out the important words explaining the actions in question?

suspected "acts dangerous to property, or infrastructure" that appear intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population," or "influence the policy of a government."

It's like you want us to think peaceful protesters are going on the list, instead of people who blow stuff up.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[jythie]

I think you are kinda twisting the intent of that definition (not that the FBI has not twisted it other ways). The intent is to split 'terrorism' from 'organized crime' in that in addition to the action it must be in the context of attempting to influence government policy. So bombing a store in order to scare extortion money out of merchants is not 'terrorism', but the same bombing intended to intimidate a judge would be.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Chas]

Okay first off, I have the displeasure of knowing Jeremy Hammond. Personally.

My basic opinion? He's an unthinking jackass.

He also does have a history of violence and acting out when he doesn't get his way.

He got ten years, not because what he did was a jackass stunt.

He got ten years because he's a REPEAT OFFENDER. He was busted back in 2006 for doing the same exact thing to a site called ProtestWarrior. He went to jail for 18 months.

And if he's in solitary (not "solidarity" comrade), it's due almost entirely to his abrasive personality. Hammond is the type of person who immediately becomes offensive if you disagree with him even a little. Being dropped in solitary is likely preventing him from being shanked.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarian capitalist USA is a threat to all free countries, blablablablablablablabalbalbalbla
To be fair, you have a good conclusion. But why is that? Because 'climate change' is a threat to all humans and the other one: Because you think you are better then other humans.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Bacon Bits]

"Terrorism" is the new word for "sedition". It turns out "treason" is really difficult to prosecute, but if you change the crime of "acts of war" into a generic and malleable term like "terrorism", you can throw all kinds of nonsense in there that the government considers subversive. Now you don't actually have to do anything wrong to be guilty. You just have to make people afraid that you are!

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[meta-monkey]

Shockingly enough, the author selectively quoted the NCTC document, creating a false and misleading narrative for shock value. From page 84 of the March 2013 NCTC whitelisting guidelines:

TERRORISM AND/OR TERRORIST ACTIVITIES: is a combination of denitions because none of
the federal law definitions of "terrorism" or "terrorist activities" were directly applicable to the
consolidated approach to watchlisting. For terrorist watchlisting purposes under this
Watchlisting Guidance, "terrorism and/or terrorist activities" combine elements from various
federal definitions and are considered to: involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human
life, property, or infrastructure that may be a violation of U.S. law, or may have been, if those
acts were committed in the United States; and, appear intended to intimidate or coerce a
civilian population, infuence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect
the conduct of government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.
This includes activities that facilitate or support TERRORISM and/or TERRORIST ACTIVITIES, such
as providing a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other
material benefit, false documentation or identifucation, weapons (including chemical, biological,
or radiological weapons), explosives, or training for the commission of act of terrorism and/or
TERRORIST ACTIVITY.

Emphasis added.

I'm no fan of the police state, either, but we should be honest on the facts. It's not merely the influencing the policy of a government that's considered "terrorism," it's doing so "by intimidation or coercion." Which I believe is a reasonable definition of terrorism.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[MobSwatter]

Speaking on behalf of the FBI:

"There is no such thing as organized crime".

J. Edgar Hoover

Al Qaeda is an across the pond variety of the mob, so obviously there is no such thing as terrorism either.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[king neckbeard]

Yes, the government agencies fighting it have resorted to illegal and immoral means (GItmo, domestic NSA snooping) but that doesn't mean the threat is imaginary.

It also doesn't mean that the threat is real, that the methods employed are effective, or that the treatment isn't worse than the disease. If you actually want to stop militant Islam, decimating the military and shutting down most of our TLAs would be some of the best steps to take. Giving less of a shit about terrorism would also be helpful, and as terrorism's effects are basically entirely psychological.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[meta-monkey]

Addendum:

There's a typo or two because I cut and paste from the OCRed version of the document. "denitions" should be "definitions," etc.

Also, note that for something to be terrorism, it must "involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure...and, appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce" etc etc etc influence government policy. (emphasis added).

So further still, it isn't even enough for the intention to influence the policy of a government to merely involve "intimidation or coercion," they must be violent or dangerous acts that threaten life, property, infrastructure.

Now, how closely this guideline is followed in the real world is another issue. But the document and official definition are fine.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Frobnicator]

Thanks for that.

My quote was a reduction of what was in the article. The article itself reduced the 14-line block of text into a 4-clause statement, so I didn't have the full thing to pull from.

From the 4-clause article excerpt it seemed a reasonable quote. From the 50-something clause actual guidelines, not so much.

Re: As always the definition of a terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

Intimidation or coercion.....kinda like lobbyists?

Re: As always the definition of a terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

Communism was a threat how? By letting it do it's thing and collapse on itself? Terrorism is a threat how? You're more likely to get struck by lightning.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda like how the magic words in getting science funding include "climate change", no matter how tenuous the connection to your actual research.

Actually, you can get plenty of funding opposing climate change too. Just like you could get lots of money if you would just shut up about lead in gasoline getting into the environment.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I guess whinging morons on Slashdot will never be placed on any list then. Hell, reddit users have accomplished more than you low ID lusers have in actually benefitting humanity in any way. Every time one of these stories come out some shite like you will whinge about how terrible it is, yet you're not doing a fucking thing about it other than being a little bitch, are you?

And in case you're going to default to the same question everyone else does, "well what are _you_ doing about it then," I contribute a yearly donation to the EFF and I take every (polite) opportunity I can to educate people on the issues of privacy and human rights that the good ol' US of A is burdening the world with. I actually do my part. What the fuck do you do, hmm? You seem to think you're a fucking genius, so let's hear what you actually do to fight back.

I'm guessing it's a whole lot of sitting on your fucking thumb and masturbating over whatever latest bit of spy tech the smartphone companies are putting out now.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

He's on the watch list, not in jail.

Assuming he's not further impacted by this until arrested and/or convicted, then it seems the system is working OK.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[meta-monkey]

Technically, re-reading what The Daily Dot author wrote, he's still mostly correct, but it's phrased in such a way (and followed by a scary quote) to make it seem like you'll be branded a terrorist for speech intended to influence a government.

Unlike U.S. law, the TSC's definition excludes a threat to human life as a prerequisite for terrorist activity.

According to the definition issued by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) in March 2013, in addition to threatening human life, an individual may be nominated to the TSDB watchlist for suspected "acts dangerous to property, or infrastructure" that appear intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population," or "influence the policy of a government."

Well, yes, that's true. He put the ellipses in place of "human life," but still included it in the previous clause. "Property or infrastructure" sound less severe when decoupled from "human life." And he definitely should have left in the "by intimidation or coercion" bit after "influence the policy of a government."

I'm curious about the "unlike US law" bit. In no place in US law is something "terrorism" if it doesn't threaten human life? If that's the case, attacks against infrastructure don't count as terrorism? So you can blow up a bridge or an electrical substation so long as you take care that no one dies? I find it hard to believe US lawmakers would leave out property and infrastructure in a statutory definition of terrorism. Is there any reason attacks against property and infrastructure should be excluded from a definition of terrorism? What would he rather have it read?

Further,

Individuals seen as facilitating or supporting "terrorist activity," violent or not, may also be added to the TSDB watchlist.

Well, true, but they list examples of facilitation and support. They all appear to be material. Money, transport, base of operations, weapons, training. Nothing about speech seems to be in there. Yes, I think you should be on a watch list if you're funding those who intend to commit violent acts against others, or giving them bombs or training. Seems reasonable to me.

Then the scare quote:

Carey Shenkman, a constitutional lawyer in New York City, said the TSC's definition appears "strikingly over-broad."

"Nonviolent political speech, or even just supporting that speech, can land someone on a watchlist,"

Can it? Not according to the definition.

Shenkman said. "The problem is even worse in the digital realm, where 'property' can mean any bit of information. Harm to property could mean virtually anything."

That is a bit vexing. It does come down to how the guidelines are applied in real life. But what do they think a better definition would be? Obviously violent acts, we've got that. No problem.

But not all acts that we would clearly define as terrorism are violent. This is the issue with "cyberterrorism." Remember stuxnet, the computer virus that destroyed the Iranian centrifuge? That's not a violent act. If somebody hacks into a nuclear power plant (I'm assuming locally? I really hope their control systems are not connected to the Internet) and causes a meltdown, was that violent? No, but certainly dangerous to infrastructure. If you hack in and shut down the air traffic control system, you have not committed an act of violence. But clearly you've conducted an act dangerous to human life, property (the privately-owned aircraft), and infrastructure.

And as the constitutional lawyer says, "property" could mean digital information. But shouldn't it? What if in order to intimidate the civilian population or influence government policy, a hacker wipes out FaceBook (to be honest, he'd probably be doing us a favor, but still). No damage to physical property was done, but the data, the posts, the photos, that (too many) people use for their personal relationships and history is destroyed. Isn't that terrorism?

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[CrimsonAvenger]

Also, note that for something to be terrorism, it must "involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure...and, appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce" etc etc etc influence government policy. (emphasis added).

It should also be noted that "terrorism" includes:

This includes activities that facilitate or support TERRORISM and/or TERRORIST ACTIVITIES, such as providing a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material benefit, false documentation or identifucation, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training for the commission of act of terrorism and/or TERRORIST ACTIVITY.

Note the "communications" part, which could be used to justify nailing the PGP and/or GPG people if desired....

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Opportunist]

If "influencing the policy of a government" is a terrorist act, most corporations are terrorist organizations.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[davester666]

Having to change the policy of the gov't for free brings terror to the hearts of our legislators.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Opportunist]

Why is it always the trolls that can't spell?

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

Put anyone who ever posts to 4chan/8chan in an aggressive manner on the terrorist watchlist and then you'll see real overreach.

Actual domestic terrorists:
- People who post "doxx", and those who do "swatting", as these people are trying to get their targets killed.
- People who threaten to rape or kill someone on social media (and have the means to do so), as opposed to joking where both sides are clearly poking fun at each other.

A lot of other 4chan-style bull**** doesn't really fit terrorist definition, but may fit other criminal behavior that should prohibit them from leaving the country.
- Initiating a DDoS attack against a domestic target or friendly target (eg most websites that aren't harboring illegal content)
- Posting of illegally obtained material (eg naked selfies, possibly child porn, etc)
- Fabricating information to destroy their target's search-engine first-result (eg encyclopedia dramatica bumping off their personal site)

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[mrchaotica]

If your peaceful protest has an ideology that's anything but capitalist, then I'm sure there's someone at the FBI capable of construing it as "dangerous to [the concept of] property."

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure how you got modded up since peaceful people will most certainly end up on this list. Have a look at the 50's and McCarthyism for a better understanding.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[nobuddy]

|influence the policy of a government.

Damn, looks like all of the lobbyists and the poor "picked on" non-political 501(c) that are all about politics are terrorists.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[nobuddy]

I'm curious what Mr Hammond blew up to get him on this list.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

So when do they arrest all the lobbyists ? Yeah yeah I know the answer is never for the one that 'contribute' to campaign funds.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

If your suspected action threatens to influence government policy, you're good enough for a terrorist watchlist.

And now you know why the FBI put "National Security" on its charter. National Security means: To maintain the status quo even against the will of the nation's people. This means spying on Civil Rights Activists, Women's Rights Activists, and Anti-War activists among others.

It's not enough to want to influence government policy. If you care about anything enough to do something about it -- say, organize a voting block, petition and/or protest, submit a bill, etc. AND it goes against the status quo, then you're a "terrorist" AKA "anti-government extremist" which the Pentagon has been militarizing the police to combat (The plan most recently surfacing as the NY Police having permanent long rifle and machine gun armed anti-protest squads).

What's ridiculous is that even just posting such things has drawn to me the negative attention of the government, regardless of whether my world view is mature enough to acknowledge that other forces are at work against us, and allow my concern to be tempered by the big picture. A new cold war is going on right now, and online assets (including journalists) are under attack. The sad thing is that without shedding some secrecy, the people who are now disenchanted with their new outlets (due to overtly ideological slants) can not bring themselves to align with their governments. They are not willing to trust blindly, and thus transparency is required for true national security to be maintained -- These growing pains during the first generation of world wide information networks will cause turmoil as the systems of government shift to incorporate strategies for the rallying of public via truth instead of lying sockpuppets. The first nation to trust their citizens enough to reveal a measure of their true inter-workings publicly (and thus sacrifice some corruption to stay afloat), will win the support of the world's populace.

Now begins the Standoff. The government can only survive by transparency and moderation, but its agencies cling to totalitarianism of secrecy and spying with the fervor of ideological extremists.

If you're not willing to go to jail or die for what you believe in, then you don't truly believe it. Either watch your words and keep your head down or stand up and become a citizen.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

Chas has just been added to the watch list for associating with a known terrorist.

Re: As always the definition of a terrorist

[HornWumpus]

The only people that really expected communism to collapse under it's own weight were right wingers.

Left wingers expected capitalism to collapse.

It takes someone completely tone deaf to history to not realize that communism was a real threat. It had to wipe out all other systems for it to survive and all the leftists knew it.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

>Hammond is the type of person who immediately becomes offensive if you disagree with him even a little.

I'm sure that he is the only one with this behavior in jail.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Jahoda]

Do any of these personality faults mean that he should be on a terrorist watch list?

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Chas]

Even in jail, there are people who understand the concept of a social filter.

Hammond has none. I mean NONE.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Chas]

Well,

Considering that the first thing he does when thwarted is try to inflict harm on people he disagrees with?
And the fact that he openly associated himself with an international "hacktivist" network that was breaking into government-affiliated websites (among other forms of mischeif)?
That he's had a history of anti-government rhetoric that condones the use of violence?

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[rtb61]

Of course the super stretchy lie of "acts dangerous to property , or infrastructure", oh look the protester spilt their milk shake, that needs to be cleaned up because it leaves infrastructure in a dangerous state, slippery, lets go beat the fuck out of the bastard of course if it's a female, then it is boobie grab time, yeah (then arrest them for resisting arrest, which of course is a circular loop pre-crime). Spill water even, how do they know its water they believed and belief is all that is require to attack you. Basically they are using terrorist laws to terrorise people because those people disagree with the politics of the individual agents involved and those agents are blatantly abusing their power to silence them. Political appointees of course ensure agencies are stacked with people who will place politics over justice. Reality is they wanted to publicly destroy him because they wanted to prove to people they could publicly destroy anyone who steps out of line for any reason even when they blatantly escalate the situation to attempt to force a confrontation and then blame the victim.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[meta-monkey]

That would be a stretch. Everything else on the list is direct material support. Putting out a product millions of people use, but the baddies also use, is not direct material support, any more than they should watch Ford Motor Company if it turns out terrorists drive Ford Escorts.

Again, how it plays out in practice could be very different. But the stated definition is not scary.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[MobSwatter]

I would think the financial end run on all this would be more terrorizing but they won't be too worried until the oil business selects a replacement primary currency which appears to be in the works, and other countries start to refuse the US dollar as payment. Then maybe they will stop the money printing presses, stop increasing the debt ceiling and realize their scam is over and the union will break up, or worse: revolt. Mob runs on two sets of books and can evade the bottom line, entire countries can't.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

So, "terrorism" labels should be awarded on rhetoric?

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Chas]

Try reading the ENTIRE post next time douchebag.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[g0bshiTe]

Jeremy is for all intents and purposes a political terrorist.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[Jahoda]

I'm just not so sure it's appropriate that anti-social behavior be relabelled as "terrorism", the magic word for abuses of power by the state. However, I do thank you for your insight into this person, he sounds like a serious toolbag.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[shutdown -p now]

Considering all of these?

No, I don't think he should be labelled terrorist. Did he kill people? Blow something up?

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[beastofburdon]

They already took care of that threat. That is why we have been invading the middle east.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[beastofburdon]

By their own definition our military is in direct support of terrorism along with our government for arming and training the terrorists.

Re:As always the definition of a terrorist

[davydagger]

Only if you are seriously stretching the definition of "terrorist" to mean "any politically motivated crime"

How many people did Jeremy Hammond kill? How many maimed and injured? What he did was the digital equvilant of and egging, some spray paint and perhaps a brick or two through the window of the CIA headquaters.

Politically motivated crime yes, but is it terrorism? no.

The definition of "terrorism" is not "otherwise crime committed with the motivation of opposing the system. The word for that is most likely "insurgent".

Are you surprised?!?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so floored by how obtuse people have become. This is in a country that treats their tax collectors like a mafia goon squad and admits that they're violating civilian rights with a shoulder shrug.... Why wouldn't you expect this to happen?

Strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Wild expansion of powers to catch radical Islamic "terrorists" who fly planes into buildings. Who could be against that? You hate freedom if you're against that. Right? Years later, redefine "terrorist" to anyone you don't like. All the "paranoid" people correctly characterized the Patriot Act coming out of the gate. But nobody was would listen.

Remember folks...

[MikeRT]

Well, what do you expect from an agency whose director said that despite the fact that Americans who've signed up with ISIS have literally committed treason (since ISIS is a standing army/unrecognized state at war with the US and its allies in Iraq), there's not much more the FBI can do than monitor said Americans if they return to US soil. This is an agency that goes into Shatneresque contortions straining gnats while wolfing down camels like they're popcorn.

Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[nehumanuscrede]

Say something the government doesn't like: Watch List
Participate in a protest the government doesn't like: Watch List
Buy too many guns or ammo in X period of time: Watch List
Visit some country our government doesn't like: Watch List
Donate to a charity or organization our government doesn't like: Watch List
Use VPN's or TOR or tech to try to keep some privacy: Probably on a Watch List

I'm sure I could expand this list quite a bit were I to put some effort into it. But you get the point.

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[Nyder]

Say something the government doesn't like: Watch List
Participate in a protest the government doesn't like: Watch List
Buy too many guns or ammo in X period of time: Watch List
Visit some country our government doesn't like: Watch List
Donate to a charity or organization our government doesn't like: Watch List
Use VPN's or TOR or tech to try to keep some privacy: Probably on a Watch List

I'm sure I could expand this list quite a bit were I to put some effort into it. But you get the point.

Uses the Internet: Watch List.
Uses a cell phone: Watch List.
Uses a credit card: Watch List.

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[Anonymous Coward]

> Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days ?

Actual terrorists. The boston bombers were reported to the FBI by Russian security services but nobody was watching them. One of the Hebdo shooters was known to have gone to Yemen and studied with the underwear bomber the other had been to jail for recruiting extremists and still nobody was watching them.

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[khr]

Say something the government doesn't like: Watch List
Participate in a protest the government doesn't like: Watch List
Buy too many guns or ammo in X period of time: Watch List
Visit some country our government doesn't like: Watch List
Donate to a charity or organization our government doesn't like: Watch List
Use VPN's or TOR or tech to try to keep some privacy: Probably on a Watch List

I'm sure I could expand this list quite a bit were I to put some effort into it. But you get the point.

Uses the Internet: Watch List.
Uses a cell phone: Watch List.
Uses a credit card: Watch List.

Not on a Watch List: Watch List

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[Anonymous Coward]

Say something the government doesn't like: Watch List
Participate in a protest the government doesn't like: Watch List
Buy too many guns or ammo in X period of time: Watch List
Visit some country our government doesn't like: Watch List
Donate to a charity or organization our government doesn't like: Watch List
Use VPN's or TOR or tech to try to keep some privacy: Probably on a Watch List

I'm sure I could expand this list quite a bit were I to put some effort into it. But you get the point.

Yeah, we get the point. The main point here is this is a good thing. Let them water it down to worthless and meaningless.

Little easier to defend some bullshit stance to maintain a list when you're on it with 100 million of your fellow citizens.

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the bigger problem is: terrorist watch list.

I can see the use of some watch lists, ie there are definately citezens the government should be watching. But as soon as you attach "terrorist", the rights go out the window.

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[DigitAl56K]

It will at some point reach the stage where if you aren't on a watch list you aren't being a very active participant in the steering of society: You don't talk about real issues because you either don't care or are too afraid to, you don't exercise your rights and are too afraid to associate with anyone who does, you go out of your way to be part of the status quo and do whatever you're told, your opinions will be handed to you by Fox News, and someone will be checking you share them on your Facebook.

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[meta-monkey]

Don't use the Internet, a cell phone, or a credit card? Must be hiding something: Watchlist.

Also, nice sig.

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs a watch list when the data can be pulled or bought from commercial sources?

Hell, all you need is to index data from those places, then do a Splunk report run every so often to fetch names that go past a baseline heuristic.

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[Chas]

Break into computer resources you're not supposed to have access to and be violently anti-government (emphasis on VIOLENTLY). Watch List.
Steal millions worth of credit card info and make donations to charity that later get yanked, hurting the charity? Watch list.
Go to jail for some of this stuff. Watch list.

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[Anonymous Coward]

The Taliban, even though they are ON the list of terrorist organizations, are not really terrorists according to our current administration.

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[Anonymous Coward]

When people ask "where's the injury" (legalese) this is the answer

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[ColdWetDog]

Well, those folks are dangerous. You want to stay away from them at all costs.

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[rhazz]

On a Watch List? That's a paddlin'.

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[Princeofcups]

> Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days ?

Actual terrorists. The boston bombers were reported to the FBI by Russian security services but nobody was watching them.

Bombing a public street is not a threat to the profits of any major corporation. Therefor, not important. The FBI no longer has any resources to protect citizens. They are all looking for IP pirates.

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[Princeofcups]

It will at some point reach the stage where if you aren't on a watch list you aren't being a very active participant in the steering of society: You don't talk about real issues because you either don't care or are too afraid to, you don't exercise your rights and are too afraid to associate with anyone who does, you go out of your way to be part of the status quo and do whatever you're told, your opinions will be handed to you by Fox News, and someone will be checking you share them on your Facebook.

It's not really a question of being on a watch list. The FBI always had questionable ethics when it comes to who they watch, e.g. Martin Luthor King, John Lennon, etc. The problem now is that it is out in the open, and no one is complaining. It used to be a scandal when the government did something wrong. Now no one seems to care.

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[Anonymous Coward]

Both on a Watch List and NOT on Watch List: Watch List

Yours sincerely / not so sincerely,
- Schrodinger / Not a Schrodinger

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[TheGratefulNet]

They are all looking for IP pirates.

"you are under arrest. give back that dotted-quad you stole, you scumbag!"

"(he says he only has 24 bits on him.)"

"shake him down, we'll find where the rest of those bits are!"

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[PRMan]

Where are my mod points? This is funny.

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[UltraZelda64]

Eats: Watch List.
Sleeps: Watch List.
Drinks water: Watch List.
Takes a shit: Watch List.
Exists on Earth: Watch List.

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[HBI]

The FBI watching MLK and Lennon seemed entirely logical in the context of the time. They found dirt on MLK. They found little to none on Lennon. They determined that the two of them were not particularly dangerous subversives and backed off.

I wish our security apparatus were as reasonable as that now.

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[Anonymous Coward]

("Casio G9000", "Timex T5E901", "Seiko SKX007") # Watch List

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[Anonymous Coward]

> Not on a Watch List: Watch List.

Obviously you're so good at hiding your subversive activities, you need to b watched more closely.

Re:Who ISN'T on a terror watch list these days

[shutdown -p now]

Won't this present some recursion problems? Now that he's on the watch list, you have to remove him from the "not on the watch list" list. But once you have him removed, he's no longer on any watch list, so you need to add him.

On the other hand, this basically means just moving files from one drawer to another all day. Sounds like a job that government is uniquely suited to run.

You get what you want

[Anonymous Coward]

People love the state, when its eye is on their neighbor.

hacktivist?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

This guy wasn't just any "hacktivist", he did some pretty high profile stuff:

Arrested in March 2012, Hammond is currently serving the remainder of a 10-year prison sentence for his involvement in a series of high-profile cyberattacks targeting federal agencies, private government contractors, and police departments.

I have my doubts whether "cyberattacks" (presumably things like denial of service, taking advantage of weak passwords, etc.) should receive such harsh penalties. But given that such actions are treated as more serious than many violent crimes, it doesn't seem surprising or inconsistent for the federal government to want to keep an eye on him. The point is: if you don't like what happened to Hammond, complaining about him ending on a terrorist watch list won't do any good; what you should complain about is the harsh laws that made him a serious felon in the eye of the law to begin with.

Re:hacktivist?

[jythie]

I see the devil as being in the details. Defacing websites and DDoS attacks are one thing, but he was also caught stealing personal information and credit card numbers which, while not a violent act, can have a pretty wide spread negative impact on people and probably should be considered a fairly serious crime. Identity theft (which such data is sold for) can be pretty life altering, even if non-violent.

Re:hacktivist?

[Chas]

As I've pointed out elsewhere.

Hammond didn't get 10 years just for this offense.

He's a repeat offender. He went away for a 2 year sentence for a nearly identical offense previously.

So there's an impetus to harsher sentencing for a repeat offense.

Re:hacktivist?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

but he was also caught stealing personal information and credit card numbers which, while not a violent act, can have a pretty wide spread negative impact on people and probably should be considered a fairly serious crime. Identity theft (which such data is sold for) can be pretty life altering, even if non-violent.

I agree, but I think the people who need to be punished severely for that are primarily the people who we entrusted that data to and whose security provisions were obviously inadequate. Punishing people like Hammond doesn't improve security, and it discourages people from actually finding and exposing security holes, because they are at risk of being charged with "hacking" even if they never intended to harm anybody. In different words, as a customer, I can't probe my bank's security because I would be accused of hacking and punished severely. My bank, on the other hand, which has piss poor security, is just getting away free with it and the hassles they cause me.

Re:hacktivist?

[jythie]

I see them both as needing punishment, but I am not sure how one would really judge if a company was negligent or not. The only really secure systems are air gapped, which renders them rather unusable in these situations. On live systems there will always be some vector of attack for a persistent hacker or group of hackers, so how secure does it need to be? What is 'reasonable' and what is 'weak'. Guidelines tend to map rather poorly given the wide variety of situations, and even experts tend to disagree on how vulnerable a place is.

If we move it simply to 'you were hacked, you are responsible' then we have doomed pretty much every company to a random shaft.

Re:hacktivist?

[king neckbeard]

Is there actually? If it doesn't actually do anything to solve the problem, it's worse for everyone but prison contractors.

Re:hacktivist?

[Chas]

Does it "solve" the problem?

Depends on how you define the problem.

He's basically shown that, unless he's ACTIVELY prevented from doing this shit, he's going to continue to do it. Regardless of the consequences.

So, putting him away and denying him access to a computing device, while not PERMANENT, *is* a solution.

It also sends a message to others that if you're a recalcitrant jackass like Jeremy Hammond is, and you follow his example, Bad Things are going to happen to you too.

Not sure why this is even an issue.

Re:hacktivist?

[king neckbeard]

If harsher sentencing doesn't reduce recidivism, then it's not solving a problem, and because of added costs for longer incarceration, is actually worse. The war on drugs is a perfect example. People don't use less drugs, people sentenced to drug offenses commit more serious crimes, and are less likely to be able to become contributing members of society even if they want to. Also, you might want to keep in mind that the 'message' you send may be that you are tyrant that should be destroyed, which I would say is usually the message when someone wants to 'send a message.' Perhaps you should look to a model other than the Tarkin Doctrine.

Re:hacktivist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if it doesn't erduce recidivisim, perhaps we should just shoot the son of a bitch. Of course, while he's in prison, he's not capable of {hacking, pushing crack, voting republican, raping little girls}

Re:hacktivist?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see the devil as being in the details. Defacing websites and DDoS attacks are one thing, but he was also caught stealing personal information and credit card numbers which, while not a violent act, can have a pretty wide spread negative impact on people and probably should be considered a fairly serious crime. Identity theft (which such data is sold for) can be pretty life altering, even if non-violent.

Well, that's a crime, even a serious one, but it's not terrorism. That's the real problem. The FBI watching him as an organized crime perpetrator? I have no problem with that. Putting him on a terrorism watch list? I have a problem with that.

Re:hacktivist?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

but I am not sure how one would really judge if a company was negligent or not. The only really secure systems are air gapped, which renders them rather unusable in these situations.

That's because companies have never faced much risk over having customer data stolen; as a result, pretty much all the software used for these transactions is utter crap.

If we move it simply to 'you were hacked, you are responsible' then we have doomed pretty much every company to a random shaft.

There is nothing "random" about it. Courts of law can and should analyze these cases and assign responsibility and determine damages, just like they do for, say, car accidents. Currently, courts of law are prevented from doing that because the law implicitly shifts blame away from corporations. And that's because corporations have lobbied for laws to be written that way. And a generation of developers and security experts have been indoctrinated into thinking that this situation is perfectly natural, as you yourself demonstrate.

Re:hacktivist?

[king neckbeard]

Yes, if harsh punishment doesn't work, just be harsher. You do realize that it's actually quite costly for the government to just kill somebody, moreso than life and prison, right? And just so you know, if that were changed, then all hell would break loose, because that means that due process is out the window. perhaps you should give the notion of community service preference, since even if it does nothing to combat crime, it actually potentially has some positive effects.

what about Lobbyists?

[tommyatomic]

Have there not been lawsuits in the past to get the government to use unbiased enforcement of laws and policies?

Two of the "terrorist" definitions from the article the article: "intimidate or coerce a civilian population," or "influence the policy of a government."

How are those definitions not absolutely met by advertising agencies, corporations and lobbyists? This seems like shooting fish in a barrel for the aclu.

Re:what about Lobbyists?

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice how the "influence the policy of a government" criterion clearly means that voting makes you a terrorist. Now let's look at the actions of legislators. Yep, they ALL meet that criterion. Please go arrest all legislators immediately! They are the worst terrorists around.

Re:Get all the Top Gear Hosts!

[PsyMan]

Don't forget Jeremy Hammond

Why worry about communism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really nothing to do with communism, the Egyptian Pharoahs were doing the same, same with the other ancient Civilizations I'm sure.

And this isn't the FBI's first foray either. COINTELPRO is real.

It has already happened here.

Re:Get all the Top Gear Hosts!

[epyT-R]

General Hammond needs to save us from the Robert Kinseys running our country.

Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

what tipped off FBI to put the fucker on their watch list was his Vivian James pc wallpaper and his t-shirt with the slogan

"it's about ethics in videogames media"

captcha: un@rmed

Re: Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously?

I hope you're joking and I'm whooshing.

He is a militant radical leftist

[Anonymous Coward]

He belongs there. He is a viciously anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-conservative, anti-American Leftist. He's the kind of kid that gets beat up 300 times "fighting racism" by attacking groups of neo-Nazis or rednecks on the streets before he finally gets f4ed up of having his teeth knocked out and starts bombing and shooting the whites he hates so much.

I'm glad they put this terrorist trash away for decades. He'll have fun "fighting racism" in the American prison system (lol, I can only imagine).

He'll come out of jail a member of the Aryan Brotherhood like weev.

I would comment

[Anonymous Coward]

But that would add me on the list...

Hate the haters

[neurosine]

Isn't it odd how the US government seems to openly and willfully emulate all of the hacks and cracks it deems to be illegal? Each branch has an agenda, often not in the interest or to the benefit of the people of the US...and each never has to be answerable. Perfectly innocent exploration and discovery is now a criminal act. I guess it's like killing a person, or a large group of people. You can't do it, unless you're killing for the government. Then it's not only okay, but heroic. I shouldn't pick on the US, many governments are ran this way. I just don't like my government exhibiting this hypocrisy. It's a matter of, if they'll do it to someone else...they'll do it to you as well. Also, who's Jeremy Hammond?

He called himself a hacker

[Anonymous Coward]

therefore, guilty by default and no 4th amendment rights.

unfunny Top Gear reference

[JustNiz]

Jeremy Hammond? They'll be going after James Clarkson next.

Re:unfunny Top Gear reference

[Virtucon]

Shouldn't Richard May be on that list for completeness?

Stop with the buzzwords

[dugancent]

"Hactivist" should be the first to go, then the "internet of things".

Am I a Terrorist?

[ememisya]

If you tell any group of people, here's a few billion, go get me some terrorists, they're going to.

Terms

[Anonymous Coward]

Terrorism is a term "authorities" like to thrown around. Right along side of "felony" and "mental illness".

It's a way for them to seize more control of the general population, because if you are mentally ill or have a felony conviction, you have less rights. And if you are a "terrorist" then you have no rights.

But who are the real terrorist?

Re:Get all the Top Gear Hosts!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem, that's Supreme Commander Thor.

Cry wolf

[JustNiz]

>> In December 2011, Hammond stole roughly 5 million confidential emails and thousands of credit card numbers

I think the problem in labelling every cyber criminal a terrorist is that it dilutes the whole importance of the label when you're dealing with actual terrorsts.

It seems that its not unlike being an ex-con in the US. So many people in the US get locked up for even relatively trivial offences that having served time doesn't carry half the social stigma in the US that it does in other countries. Therefore encarceratiion in the US is probably less effective as a deterrent than in other countries.

Re:Cry wolf

[Anonymous Coward]

... probably less effective as a deterrent ...

I don't know: Do pro-life activists encourage condoms as a deterrent? Do women stop getting pregnant because some multi-layered hypocrite says childbirth is more important than the consequences of giving birth.

From what I've gathered on slashdot, an arrest record in the USA is a public record. Not your incarceration, not your conviction, just your arrest. Watch 'CSI' or 'Law & order' and see how often the heroic and very clever cops arrest the wrong person. If you are convicted, you frequently go on another public list; like public urination puts you on the sex offender's list. And when you get out of jail, you can never choose a politician to represent you; you're not entitled to vote anymore.

A person can look at those public lists and decide to harass and stalk you. Because the USA has freedom of speech, as the Baptist church of Westboro gleefully knows.

But that stalking can be minor: Companies can refuse to employ you, banks can refuse to supply credit services, insurers can refuse to cover you; because you broke the law, if guilty, or simply because someone else labelled you a criminal.

Re:Cry wolf

[wvmarle]

I think the problem in labelling every cyber criminal a terrorist is that it dilutes the whole importance of the label when you're dealing with actual terrorsts.

I'd call that an advantage.

At the moment, the governments of various countries (the UK and the US most notably, but there are more) can take away many civil liberties and civil rights from people just by labelling them "terror suspect". No actual evidence is needed, just a suspicion. This can block you from flying, for example. They can throw you in jail, possibly for years without charge (see Guantanamo Bay for example). Can't do that with even rape or murder suspects: you can't keep them in jail indefinitely without charge and without trial. You're possibly better off suspected being the director of a snuff movie which shows how to prepare and cook a human child, than you are after talking to your long lost uncle who happened to have made a small donation to a Muslim organisation which is affiliated to a mosque which is attended by a suspected Al Quaeda sympathiser.

Terrorists should be dealt with the same way other criminals are dealt with. They're criminals, plain and simple. They may do it for political, ideological or even religious reasons - they're still criminals: murderers, extortionists, computer hackers, whatever. That are the more appropriate labels.

Re:Cry wolf

[JustNiz]

>> Terrorists should be dealt with the same way other criminals are dealt with.

Tell that to the family that watched a video of their son being burnt to death in a iron cage yesterday.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2015...

Re:Cry wolf

[wvmarle]

Why would they have the right to "preferential treatment" compared to, say, the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook?

That perpetrator was not considered "terrorist". Yet his victims were children (who did nothing to him), while this Jordanian pilot was a fighter himself, who knowingly and willingly put himself in harms way.

Re:Cry wolf

[JustNiz]

Motive and cause.

In the case of Sandy Hook, it seems clear that the perpitrator was actually mentally ill, so was literally malfunctioning mentally.

The terrorists not only clearly knew what they were doing and chose to do it anyway, but had planned it beforehand, and then further used it to try to incite mass terror on a wider scale. Unlike the Sandy hook perpitrator, their intention was to not just kill the victim(s), but to make him suffer in the worst way possible before he died, and then also publicise it as a sick and callous attempt at prmoting their own political agenda.

There is no way that the perpitrators of these two events can be considered morally equivalent.

Anonymous ?

[GuB-42]

Anonymous hacker Jeremy Hammond on a secret terrorist watchlist

So, if I understand correctly, there is an named anonymous hacker on a widely publicized secret list...

Re:Anonymous ?

[Anonymous Coward]

War is peace. Freedom is slavery.

Creeping Definition of Terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't bow down to your government overlords, you are a terrorist.

"hacktivist"?

[superwiz]

From the article:

Hammond is currently serving the remainder of a 10-year prison sentence for his involvement in a series of high-profile cyberattacks targeting federal agencies, private government contractors, and police departments.

Also from the article:

“If we want to use the terrorism database to protect human life, it’s only effective if it is narrowly focused on people who actually pose a threat to human life,” former FBI agent Michael German, now a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, told the Daily Dot.

Simple question: how is a civilian gaining control, without authorization, of command-and-control equipment of police departments and federal agencies not a threat to human life? Did he inform them of their security vulnerabilities in order to allow them to fix em? Granted, it's not his responsibility to do so, but hacking into multiple government facilities for any purposes other than concern for their safety should at least indicate that he is a person worth watching, shouldn't it? It's not like there is a kill-on-sight order against him. He is on a watch list.

Einstein was wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Lies and misinformation clearly propagate faster than light.

Or was it just an oopsie that you left off the "suspected "acts dangerous to property, or infrastructure" that appear intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population," bit. Shocking news: If you do things which are the exact dictionary definition of terrorism - Violence or the threat of violence to force changes in government policy - you'll end up on terrorist watchlists!

I'm no fan of the panopticon hell America is slowly rolling towards, and of course the TLAs pervert these definitions to their own interests and ends (How does your leftist group know who the FBI stooge is? It's the guy who wants to do something violent), but it does no justice to act as if there's an official government policy that says anyone forming a political action group are terrorists for multiple reasons: Most importantly because there isn't, and almost as importantly because nobody listens to Peter the last time he cries wolf. Leave the raving hysterical overreactions to the tea partiers next time Obama wears a funny tie or something.

Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

he didn't have a magic ring.

Attempting to change the government by legal means is what citizens are supposed to do.
    It's called elections and talking to your representatives.

I've heard doing it my illegal means is for the lobbyists and lawyers.

Illegal and violent seems a bad thing, but for it to get above the bar to be terrorism it seems the threat should be expected to cause a reasonable person to be concerned for their person.

I'm not sure how any hacking I've heard about gets to this level.
Unless maybe the guy also had one of those magic rings?

You wanted it, you got it, you deserve it.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's on the watch list, not in jail.

Yep, and being on a list makes no difference at all to anyone, right? Just ask anyone listed as a sexual or violent offender after completing their sentence (or when they weren't even convicted of a crime) how well that's worked out for them. "It's not punishment", quoth the brain-dead old oath breakers on the supreme court. Ah huh.

You idiots wanted the government to have the power to put anyone on a list no matter what. Well, now they have it. Don't feel so fucking self-righteous now, do you?

Assuming he's not further impacted by this until arrested and/or convicted, then it seems the system is working OK.

Sure. If you're so incredibly stupid to believe there's a universe where that was actually possible, then you betcha.

Modern Law "enforcement"

[Anonymous Coward]

The records further reveal how the FBI treats cybercrimes and shines a rare light on the expanding definitions of terrorism used by U.S. law enforcement agencies.

Agent 1: "Hmmm, this guy is doing something we don't like. But it's legal."
Agent 2: :"I know, let's call him a terrorist and civil forfeiture all his stuff!"
Agent 1 & 2 high fives each other and says tiogether: "PROFIT!"

Careful

[Anonymous Coward]

Compile a list of watch list the government doesn't like :Watch List

Cowards are easily intimated

[Anonymous Coward]

So if the gunment gets scurred, then it becomes a crime?

As always the definition of a terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just a gentle a gentle reminder: The Government, ie: the STATE, is not the Country or it's people. It serves it's own interests not yours.

Shades of Delta House

[eric_harris_76]

Double-secret probation!

Just couldnt help myself

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Hammond, a tech savvy man, put on a terrorist watch list... Titanfall anyone?