Reuters Editor Faces 10 Years In Prison Because Vandalism Is A Federal Crime When It Involves Computers
from the don't-do-that dept
In what seems like a pretty cut and dry case, Reuters editor Matthew Keys has been indicted for letting some hackers into the content management system of his former employer, Tribune, after he was fired. Barring a case of mistaken identity (and if that defence were raised, things would get interesting) it doesn't look good for Keys, as the indictment includes some damning IRC chat logs:
According to a federal indictment first obtained by the Huffington Post, Keys used a chat site to pass information to Anonymous. Using the name AESCracked, Keys handed over the login credentials and told hackers to "go fuck some shit up", the indictment says.
The hacker accessed at least one Los Angeles Times story and altered it, the charges say.
On the one hand, when compared what happened with Aaron Swartz, this is a step in the right direction. We're not talking about someone with positive intentions who walked the line between hacking and innovation, but someone who acted with obvious malice. But on the other hand, this highlights the big problem with federal hacking laws. The damage amounted to little more than inconvenience for a system administrator, making this essentially a case of small-scale vandalism—but because it involves computers, it's elevated to a federal crime. This really makes no sense. Computers and the internet are present in every part of life today, and computer crime can happen at every scale. In this case, it was the sort of reckless but small act of spite that would result in a much less serious punishment if it didn't happen online, and if it didn't allow the government to place Anonymous in the villain role of another story.
The case against Keys looks strong, and I'm guessing it will end with some sort of deal for a lesser punishment—possibly in exchange for information about other hackers. The real penalty will be the damage done to his career by this breach of trust (which further highlights the pointlessness of trying to put him in jail), but the biggest takeaway is that federal computer crime laws are in serious need of reform. Elevating the severity of simple crimes because they involve what is now one of the most common tools in the world is a senseless imbalance of justice, and makes it much harder to identify and combat serious crime online.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anonymous, cfaa, hacking, matthew keys, vandalism
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is that the opposite of talking out of your ass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130314/17103322330/reuters-editor-faces-10-years-prison-be cause-vandalism-is-federal-crime-when-it-involves-computers.shtml#c1070
I am not surprised one iota you have a bit of trouble understanding the basic fundamentals of the legal terms in conspiracy, accessory, willful intent, and constitutional rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Conspiracy to do the same thing online, where it's easier and cheaper to fix than in the bricks & mortar world should not be punished ten times more severely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's clearly stated in the article, to my mind. Did you read it this time?
"Why shouldn't this be a federal crime?"
Because if the same thing happened offline, it probably wouldn't be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's the act that is or is not illegal, not the method of delivery. Or at least it should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My guess is simply that he gets 5 years for the social engineering man in the middle attack (as being disgruntled employee would be his motivation), and another five years for violating the privacy and aiding an organization known for illegally hacking computers from time to time. Hence the 10 years.
It's not a federal offense because no US Government computer systems were affected by the attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It doesn't have to involve government computers to be a violation of the CFAA:
"It governs cases that implicate a compelling federal interest, where U.S. government computers, or those of certain financial institutions are involved, where the crime itself is interstate in nature, or where computers are used in interstate and foreign commerce." Note the "or".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The better question is why should it be a federal crime? Where are the supporters of state's rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps you should read the article before commenting, since your question is clearly answered.
Why don't you tell us why this should be a federal crime? Why does "on a computer" increase the penalty tenfold?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think he will ultimately lose, though the charge should not be hacking. It shouldn't be vandalism either. He technically did neither. Is there a federal law against inciting mischief? Aiding and abetting a criminal enterprise? In an analog sense, he left the keys to the store on a park bench with a note saying "these are the keys to store down the street, have at it."
Nevermind that the administrator should have locked him out of the system before he left the building on his last day. That the companies systems should have been properly firewalled and segmented to authenticate persons and authorize access only to areas relevant to that persons position. I'm sure Anonymous will cheerfully confirm that corporations and governments the world over do a horrible job of closing the door on folks when they walk out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, but the people they buy off are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spread the blame where it's due
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spread the blame where it's due
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spread the blame where it's due
Also, using a password to access a system is no more hacking that using a key to open a door is lock picking.
Unauthorized access, absolutely. Hacking, not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Spread the blame where it's due
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spread the blame where it's due
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If he knew someone elses login, then that should be on person who said, here is my login information.
I know so many accounts for all of my clients I actually keep lists (electronically secured), so that if I don't work for them any more I can hand them a list and say "these accounts need to be changed for your security".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now, that being said...the FBI handling these investigations is equivalent of a third party private eye investigation. The FBI is law enforcement and the US Secret Service is military. On Swartz's first charges brought up by the FBI, they handled everything within the Boyd's if the law. They did not wrongfully arrest Aaron Swartz. The DOJ and the US Secret Service handle investigations differently and as we have seen, not too well.
In the case of Keys, it's evident that he did in fact send passwords of his colleagues (of whom work for a major news agency) to Anonymous. That and Haymenn isn't prosecuting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I guess I missed that in the article. So, did Keys actually have to "hack" to get that? If not, then I'd be curious as to why the colleague gave out his password. If the colleague gave it out willingly, then that would complicate, if not weaken, the case. Something seems fishy here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There are many types of attacks for hacking and accquiring passwords. One in particular is a social engineering attack where you simply look over someone's shoulder to see what they are typing as a password. Another is a macro virus or a Trojan sent in an e-mail attachment that looks legitimate.
Both are considered social engineering hacking attacks. My guess is that Keys had to have used the former to gain access illegally due to the fact that most IT admins can more easily detect the latter. The other key factor into this speculation on how Keys did it (as it has been clearly established he did do it with mal-intent) is that he's an editor and likely has a photographic memory.
Hacking to get the passwords aside, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act basically says that if you are in the responsible second party of an event, you also get charged to the same extent as those persons carry out an attack based on the information given to them. Keys was also an accessory to the crime. Both of which are punishable for 5 years for each offense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He wasn't an editor, he was a web producer (the role of editor is taken from the linked Guardian headline, and doesn't quite mesh with the body text). If you read the PDF, he's accused on letting people gain access to the CMS. That is, the content management system that a web producer almost certainly has some kind of admin access to in order to do his job.
I'm not sure why you're going into hacking techniques or talking about colleagues' passwords - he gave them access to a system he accessed as part of his old job, and the passwords apparently hadn't been changed. That's it, at least based on current evidence.
About the only thing that indicates hacking is the comment that "it takes a while to grant one username access to every site", which could indicate that. It could also indicate that he created a new username and tried granting it universal admin access in such a way that he's cover his tracks - but that's using the system in the way its intended, not hacking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It definitely shouldn't carry the sentences either way, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Secret Service is a law enforcement agency under the DHS, not the military.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's nothing innovative about downloading someone's paid database.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you suggesting that they have a "paid database" with the system passwords? Now that's innovative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/13/world/meast/saudi-executions-beheading/index.html?hpt=wo _c2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The other key point is that the FBI is handling this case rather well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mis-directed several ways at once.
2nd, you conflate "hacking" with giving password to someone else. My guess is that this guy was well aware of penalty and wished to dodge it.
3rd: "The real penalty will be the damage done to his career by this breach of trust (which further highlights the pointlessness of trying to put him in jail)" -- That's a typical elitist dodge which results in skating. Let's just do it the old-fashioned way: put him in jail (briefly) then he can start over having paid his debt to society.
4th, computer crimes -- real ones like this -- are such a potentially pernicious area that stiff punishments are needed. And without those for pressure, he wouldn't be pressured to rat out his pals. So Mike's whole argument in last para is "soft on crime", because fits with both his pro-piracy notions, and his assertions that malicious mischief and innovation are indistinguishable.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike daily proves the value of an economics degree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mis-directed several ways at once.
Because that's exactly what happened here, perhaps? Facts are your enemy, again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mis-directed several ways at once.
2) I agree that it's a questionable conflation, but it's how the law is written -- and it also does make some amount of sense. Many major hacks in the past have been more about social engineering and found passwords than about any sort of technological measure. More specific definitions of unauthorized access would be good, though.
3) "Elitist dodge which results in skating" -- what?
4) "whole argument in last para is "soft on crime"" -- this isn't a political race, blue, you can't distract everyone with buzz terms like "soft on crime". I think he should face trial and penalties for his crimes -- but I question whether it makes any sense for the FBI to come swooping down on him with a federal indictment.
"assertions that malicious mischief and innovation are indistinguishable." -- that's hilarious. I guess you didn't read the line in the post where I specifically noted that this was a case of malicious mischief and not innovation. Jeeze, now that I realize you didn't read the post, I wish I hadn't wasted time reading your comment...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
b) he wanted them to "go fuck some shit up"- sounds more like he wanted them to do more damage and they refused to me.
c) it's punished severely because when the law was drafted, hacking was generally only done to cause severe damage.
Does the law need to be updated? probably. it doesn't necessarily make it ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For Point B) What's been established by you is his motive. Your Point B implies that Keys is a disgruntled employee...and in my view (and that of the FBI aparently...who actually uses paychology to figure out motive while profiling a suspect) who handled the situation poorly and could have done something better than get a a website hacked.
For Point C) The damage done was to the Ruter's web server...which not only handles stories but also does regular up to date stock reports. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act had this specifically in mind when it was drafted and hacking the site would have caused economic damage well over $5,000 for its customers.
5 years for the social engeneering hack, 5 years for accessory to a crime which he organized and asked for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who cares if it's "conspiracy"? Conspiracy is generally just a charge that gets tacked on every time a crime involves two or more people talking. I could "conspire" with my friend to jaywalk and that wouldn't make it a federal crime.
b) he wanted them to "go fuck some shit up"- sounds more like he wanted them to do more damage and they refused to me.
Maybe. I still don't see what makes it a federal crime, other than "computers!"
c) it's punished severely because when the law was drafted, hacking was generally only done to cause severe damage.
Does the law need to be updated? probably. it doesn't necessarily make it ridiculous.
I don't think we're in disagreement here about anything other than the appropriateness of the term "ridiculous". I consider an old and obsolete law badly in need of an update that is still enforced despite not making much sense in a case like this to be exactly that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Leigh, the point is that Matthew Keys not only conspired to have the LA Times website defaced, but handed over his security credentials to hackers so that they could do it. That does not lawfully remove him from telling them to do it for him. He conspired with the hackers with full willful intentions of defacing the LA Times website. He might not have caused irreparable damage but he did block the constitutional rights of the LA Times by having hackers deface the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ironic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shooting you in the face is not a problem.
If you paint your "art" on my house ..
Shooting you in the face is not a problem.
People do not get to mess with other peoples stuff because they feel like it.
Fuck them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Shooting you in the face is not a problem.
Pretty sure you go to jail for a long time if you kill someone for breaking into your computer. Claiming self defense in a homicide trial works when you are protecting yourself or others from bodily harm, or possibly protecting your physical property, depending on jurisdiction. Even if you found someone in the act of vandalizing your web site (and how likely is that?) and shoot them in the face, I doubt you could get away with it. And if you're talking about tracking them down later and killing them, well that's first degree murder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next crime, I received $0.05 from a transaction than I should have, I'm now guilty of money laundering.... on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trolls just please shut up...here's why...
It's easy to forget the Routers is a financial business site and that literally thousands upon thousands of users rely on it for their financial news. Heck, some peopl actually make stock purchases and trades based on what Rueters posts on their website. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act also states somewhere that any person attacking in a way that affects the commerce of individuals is punishable.
I think it's reasonable to say that he should be punished to a somewhat full extent. When it comes to affecting the economic stability of individuals, that's 5 years maximum prison time in of itself. He also carried out the social engeneering attack to carry out an attack willfully...that's another 5 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...
Get real. Most well-rounded adults consider that punishment should be based on how much damage a given action did, not how much damage it could have done under some imaginary scenario that did not happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...
Likewise, if you hand over your security credentials to the wrong people with the intent of harming your former employers by giving said wrong people access to the content control of your employer's entire website, and nothing happens...it's the same as if you had done it in accordance to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The reason the FBI hasn't indicted Keys on further charges is simply because nothing happened to constitue no more than 10 years in prison...ergo nothing happened so the potetial minimum of 10 years in prison is the direct result of only the intent of William Keys in harming Reuters.
It was likely his intension because he got fired or let go and he was not happy about it. He had the motive to do it and that's why he was investigated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...
For a start, Reuters wasn't the site hacked - it was his previous employer. We won't go on to your other misconceptions (which as ever, are technical concept you have a shaky grasp of), but half your comment is based on an outright fallacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...
I mean look at him, he's already telling people "Trolls just please shut up" and then defending his comments with wild inaccuracies based on something he doesn't understand. There's no point trying to correct someone like that. Sometimes, I think Denis Leary's definition of people with Asperger's is spot on. More so lately when I see Wally go on about subjects he knows little about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...
So far, he hasn't understood which company Keys helped attack, his job role there, the type of system or type of access gained nor apparently the real consequences of that attack to the company (unless he's wishing to have prosecutions based on potential, rather than actual, damage - a scary prospect).
In other words, despite his attempts to "educate" people, he doesn't seem to know the basics of the case despite having (presumably) read the same articles I did. I'd like people to understand the facts, not someone's misinterpretation of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...
Yeah, a lot of people seem to be misunderstanding the case. The guy was let go from his previous job and handed over his credentials to someone at Anonymous. He didn't do the actual hacking, he didn't even know what they were going to do. Etc.
But it does seem to be that he, Wally, is saying prosecutions should be based on POTENTIAL damage/harm as opposed to ACTUAL. His bit about Reuters being a financial organization/site that thousands (or millions) use is testament to that. I read that and thought so what? That's not at all related to the story or what happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...
A) I would like you to tell me how you think he got those passwords (I only speculated on "how" and not on whether or not he did hand the passwords over). Acquisition of those passwords by Keys is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Either way, even if the Rueters website was or was not hacked, he still illegally got passwords and handed them over. He had intent of harm by passing them over to Anonymous (whom quite admirably did not act upon his request).
B) The trolls I speak of are the ones stating that by some weird reason his accessory to attempt harming a website (which of all things reports on economic financial situations and has customers and investors depending on said news) should get lessor charges.
C) I did not mean to come off as smug, but there is a specific reason the FBI handled it the way they did and as Mike Mansick pointed out in the article, the FBI did something right in a stepping forward toward actual restraint in pressing charges in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...
How about they were passwords he had access to as part of his job that hadn't been changed?
Given the fact that his profession as an editor is likely because he can quickly read and observe mistakes, I think it's fairly safe to speculate that he had a photographic memory and used it to carry out his misdeeds.
I think it's an extremely tenuous speculation supported by no evidence whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...
"Ok, Keys gave passwords of his previous employer (Rueters)"
Keys is working NOW for Reuters. His previous employer was Tribune. He has done NOTHING to harm Reuters, but has acted to harm Tribune. Again, read the article before you go keep going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...
I still think it constitutes 10 years in prison though...I refuse to budge on that point :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...
"Reuters editor Matthew Keys has been indicted for letting some hackers into the content management system of his former employer, Tribune, after he was fired. "
He didn't allow anyone into Reuters (not Routers), he let them into his former employer, Tribune!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...
""Reuters editor Matthew Keys has been indicted for letting some hackers into the content management system of his former employer, Tribune, after he was fired. "
He didn't allow anyone in...he just handed them the passwords.....after he got fired..that sure as heck sounds like a disgruntled employee to me.
The content management system reports the constant rise and fall of stocks and condities trades and prices....not just financial or business news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...
Thing is, you said that he had let people in (by giving them the passwords) into Reuters and then went on at great length to say how damaging that is because its Reuters and its so important to so many people. Your entire comment is thus nullified when people point out to you that he hadn't allowed anyone into Reuters but a separate system entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...
The thing is that Keys had intent to let others gain illegal access to Tribune's system. That in itself constitutes willful intent of harm which is still worth 10 years in accordance to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Why Reuters would even be crazy enough to keep Keys employed with them after all that in the first place is beyond me though. If I had a secretary that gave out client information (which is confidential by law) that pulled a stunt like that, he/she would be gone in a flash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...
The vandalism that was done was easily undone. No irreparable harm happened to anyone. And yet you want to make this guy a felon and throw him in prison for a decade?
This is kinda like being thrown into prison for a decade and labeled a felon because you were jay walking. The punishment is totally disproportionate to the harm. That is the whole problem with the CFAA! It punishes crimes of widely varying levels of harm with equal gusto. It might be the law, but it should be unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...
The intent was malicious intent, and that is not covered freedom of expression
That being said, it seems to me that people are wrongfully comparing this to the case of Aaron Swartz's rights being violated in the same sense of his activist activities. Please tell me when Aaron Swartz ever gained illegal access to a website's server only to deface a former employer's web page? Since when did Aaron Swartz ever to intend to hand over the information he gathered to the wrong people to be used against his former employer?
Lets look at what Aaron Swartz's clear intentions were before we start making snap judgments and comparisons to Mr. Keys here....
Aaron Swartz intended to release public domain information and documents that you had to pay JSTR or PACER to see the documents digitally. That is peaceably protesting and taking the extra step for the greater good of everyone.
Matthew Keys intended to have hackers deface the web page of his former employer, the LA Times, with his security credentials.
Which person had a better intent here??? Which person actually had a chance to defeat the charges stacked up on them?
It is extremely evident that Matthew Keys violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act via direct second person accessory. There is no way in Hell that defacing the LA Times' website is an act of freedom of expression because when that happens, it violates the freedom of expression that the LA Times has a right to under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and simultaneously the freedom of the Press clauses therein.
In short, his method was illegal according to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as he was second party to the act he willfully conspired with or hired/convinced others to deface the LA Times website, and he violated the very Constitutional rights rights of the LA Times by having their website defaced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reread the article again before you start commenting
Good advice for all!
I hate it when I miss this step.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Federal
However, being a federal crime should not imply that the punishment should be harsher. Spray painting the road just outside Yellowstone should be approximately the same as spray painting the road just inside Yellowstone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone is confused...
2- No "hacking" occurred here. Unauthorized access, sure, but that's not "hacking." To use my analogy above, once you're given the key, you don't have to "Break and Enter."
3- Shame on the IT and HR staffs at Reuters for not having a solid employee termination procedure in place, and following it. I work for a very small company, but we always ensure that people's accounts are disabled or passwords changed before they come out of the firing meeting.
4- I agree that the punishment needs to fit the crime. The question is, what fits? It's like we have someone who has released a tiger onto a city street, but the tiger just took a nap under a shady tree, and was recovered without harm to anyone. Do we punish him harshly, because the tiger was capable of maiming and killing the dozens of people in the street, or let him off with a small fine and a warning, because nobody was hurt? Keys gave is password up, so he had no control over what was done. They could have filed plausible stories which would alarmed the public and caused a panic. (War of the Worlds, anyone?) That's extreme, but they certainly had more potential for harm than they ultimately caused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IT
I would like you to know that the damage done by the person who defaced the page(s) in question is undone in seconds. And yes, it would be prudent to check logs to make sure of what exactly happened, but that is what a sysadmin is paid for and can do in a couple of minutes. The reference to damage over $5,000 is just bogus. The actual damage is under $10 worth of a highly paid employee's time. The whole thing is completely childish and if the offended web publisher wants to get paid for revamping their security, then they are being dishonest. That the government legal workers are taking this to such heights, or even seriously, just makes me embarrassed for them. They should be more mature and know better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IT
I wonder if Ole Juul has ever read up on the legal implications of willful intent, conspiracy, and violating a news organization's rights. Didn't take me too long to think outside of potential damage.........At least I have the ability to think outside the box Ole Juul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]