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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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]

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.

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?

[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]

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.

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?

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.