Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Former Reuters Media Editor Found Guilty of Helping Anonymous Hack Into LA Times (twitchy.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the go-directly-to-jail dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Prolific tweeter and former Reuters social media editor Matthew Keys, charged with computer hacking under the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act, was found guilty today on all counts and faces up to 25 years in prison when sentenced in January. Wired reports: "According to authorities, during a recorded FBI interview with Keys in October 2012 at his home, prior to his indictment, he admitted to his involvement in the hacking of the L.A. Times, and to sending a series of disparaging, sometimes threatening e-mails to a former employer. Keys waived his Miranda rights at the time of the interview and was concerned that the case not be publicized, apparently believing he might get off as a cooperating witness."

36 comments

  1. Seems appropriate by The-Ixian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They guy admitted to breaking the law...

    In other news, a guy goes to jail after admitting to B&E...

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    1. Re:Seems appropriate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      25 years is disproportionate punishment to the crime though

    2. Re:Seems appropriate by tomhath · · Score: 1

      It's unlikely he'll serve that much time.

      But the punishment might be appropriate, depending on how much it cost the company to recover from the hack. Typically something like that ends up costing the victim tens of thousands of dollars; it's the same as if he stole that much money or torched someone's car.

    3. Re:Seems appropriate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      25 years is disproportionate punishment to the crime though

      It pretty clearly states, even in the stupid summary, that he isn't even going to be sentenced until January, and that 25 years is the MAX he could possibly face.

    4. Re:Seems appropriate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So how much did the banksters and politicians cost the citizens over their past few decades of rampant theft? Seems like they should be going away for a few millennia each.

    5. Re: Seems appropriate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot- they own the govt

      but yeah.

  2. what a maroon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He snitched on himself. And got what he deserved.

    1. Re:what a maroon by MagickalMyst · · Score: 0

      I know! Stupid maroons!

      He'll probably be marooned in jail soon enough.

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    2. Re:what a maroon by zlives · · Score: 2

      i think you misspelled macaroon.

    3. Re:what a maroon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo

  3. How many times does it have to be said? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Never talk to cops! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  4. "faces up to 25 years in prison" - Nah. by brec · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bad Reporting on Matthew Keys' Possible Sentence Conceals Prosecutorial Power

    TLDR: In almost all cases, definitely including this one, the maximum possible sentence is entirely irrelevant to the sentence that will be actually imposed.

    1. Re:"faces up to 25 years in prison" - Nah. by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Good to see another Popehat fan. As soon as I saw the article I looked for the "faces up to 25 years" and was going to post the same thing.

    2. Re:"faces up to 25 years in prison" - Nah. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      In almost all cases, definitely including this one, the maximum possible sentence is entirely irrelevant to the sentence that will be actually imposed.

      Thanks for giving some deeper insight into this story. The real headline is not what the Reuters guy did, but how out-of-control the federal prosecutors have become.

      At worst, what this guy did was vandalism.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:"faces up to 25 years in prison" - Nah. by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      Harassment?

      and to sending a series of disparaging, sometimes threatening e-mails to a former employer.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    4. Re:"faces up to 25 years in prison" - Nah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Keys is a SJW. I wonder how long his support would last if the person that received those threats happens to be a woman? And given that Keys supposedly had an in with Anonymous (he was a source both for a Gawker Anonymous article and a book about Anonymous by a Forbes writer), what other shit did he manage to get Anonymous to do for him?

    5. Re:"faces up to 25 years in prison" - Nah. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      In almost all cases, definitely including this one, the maximum possible sentence is entirely irrelevant to the sentence that will be actually imposed.

      Thanks for giving some deeper insight into this story. The real headline is not what the Reuters guy did, but how out-of-control the federal prosecutors have become.

      At worst, what this guy did was vandalism.

      If you break into some place in order to vandalize it, expect to be sentenced the same as any burglar. If you want to be sentenced as a vandal, vandalize something you can reach from the sidewalk.

      That said, I'm not convinced the true damages were over the $5000 needed to be federal. In my State I would expect a class C felony though. Except that local prosecutors would be scared to charge a media guy.

  5. Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would make a person so dumb as to wave their Miranda rights and then admit to a crime in a recorded interview?

    1. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is usually because they lie to you, tell you that you will likely face no charges if you come clean, etc.

    2. Re:Why by taustin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Rule #1: Cops are allowed to lie, unless they are under oath (and they'll still often lie, then, too).

      Rule #2: Asking for an attorney does not mean they have to stop asking you questions.

      Rule #3: Invoking your right to remain silent does mean they have to stop asking you questions.

    3. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's likely. OTOH, like most criminals, Keys may not think that what he did was all that bad even though he probably knew that punishments in the CFAA are ridiculously draconian. I'm less sympathetic, though, about the harassing and threatening emails he admitted sending. Its seems that part of the story is being somewhat downplayed compared to the sentencing angle.

  6. Pretty much screwed ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    He allegedly encouraged the hackers to use the credentials to âoego fuck some shit up.â

    And, really, if that was his attitude, he gets no sympathy.

    In terms of the definition of "computer fraud and abuse", that's pretty much it.

    Of course, the problem is you could do a LOT of non-digital crimes and do a LOT less time, which makes me ask if these prison sentences are even sane.

    Hell, you could probably intentionally run down someone with your car and do less prison time.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  7. protip by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Waving one's Miranda rights in "hopes of getting off as a cooperating witness" is an ill advised legal maneuver.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  8. What? by Daetrin · · Score: 1

    "Keys waived his Miranda rights at the time of the interview and was concerned that the case not be publicized, apparently believing he might get off as a cooperating witness."

    I think that means "he would rather that the case not be publicized but was worried it would be" and not "he was worried because he didn't think the case would be publicized and he thought it ought to be", but i'm not entirely sure.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  9. Hacking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it really hacking if someone gives you the keys when you ask for them?

  10. He is right. Mods are wrong. by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, if you really did something bad, it needs to be addressed.

    No, the system cannot be counted on to address it proportionally or responsibly.

    No, you should not ever, and I mean ever, freely converse about anything within the context of our (note USA-centric presumption) current legal system. A lawyer should do that. You can make your situation much, much worse in very short order with as little as one "yes" or "no." Worse in a context where "worse" can be far more severe than anything that was actually appropriate.

    Confine your responses to politely agreeable responses to specific commands for compliance WRT your custody from the officers. Anything else: "That will have to be addressed to my lawyer, sir." First thing -- and the only thing -- you really need to say, politely, contextually, WRT to any accusations or charges, is "Lawyer."

    When they say, as they almost certainly will, that your compliance with them may ease your penalties, you say "Thank you, I understand that, and will convey that to my lawyer as soon as possible." Nothing else. Nothing. Until you do, in fact, discuss it with your lawyer.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  11. Never talk to the police by vvaduva · · Score: 4, Informative

    And this is why you never talk to cops without a lawyer present. Ever.

    Ever.

    1. Re:Never talk to the police by traces8 · · Score: 2

      I think the real lesson should be this is why you never allow a random group of internet users to use your password from a previous position to enter website that isn't yours.

    2. Re:Never talk to the police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah, the lesson is, "Don't be a criminal." Seems easy enough to learn.

    3. Re:Never talk to the police by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Ironically, you cannot have the one (cops) without the other (internet exploit).

      So, it is not the chicken or the egg so much as it is the fowl and the hard-shelled organic vessel where an embryo develops.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  12. It's okay if the NSA does it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But not when private citizens do it. Double standard much?

    1. Re: It's okay if the NSA does it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has ALWAYS been this way and it ALWAYS will be: State >>> ordinary people.

  13. unbalanced justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems odd this guy gets 25 years for giving someone his password and making some baseless threats but there are people committing heinous crimes getting shorter sentences. I'm not saying the guy shouldn't be punished, but there's a bit of a kneejerk reaction when it comes to computer-related crimes I think in the justice system.

  14. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recommend you try xhamster. This is slashdot! Unless you're into goats you're not going to get any action here.