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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[nobuddy]

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

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

[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.

You get what you want

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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?

[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.

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?

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.