How The Tribune Company And The DOJ Turned A 40 Minute Web Defacement Into $1 Million In 'Damages'
from the fudging-the-numbers dept
Last week we wrote about Matthew Keys being found guilty of three CFAA charges which will likely lead to some amount of jailtime for him (the prosecution has suggested it will ask for less than 5 years). While Keys still denies he did anything he's accused of, the prosecution argues that he took a login to the Tribune Company's content management system, handed it off to some hackers in an internet forum and told them to mess stuff up. And... so they made some minor vandalism changes to an LA Times article. It took the LA Times all of 40 minutes to fix it. Even if we assume that Keys did do this, we still have trouble seeing how it was any more than a bit of vandalism that deserves, at best, a slap on the wrist. Its ridiculous to say that it's a form of felony hacking that requires a prison sentence. As we noted in our original article, the Tribune Company and the feds argued that the damage cost the company $929,977 in damage, well above the $5,000 threshold for the CFAA to apply. We still have trouble seeing how the $5,000 could make sense, let alone nearly a million dollars. And it's important to note that the sentencing guidelines match up with the dollar amount of the "damages" so this actually matters quite a bit for Keys.Sarah Jeong, who's been doing an awesome job covering this for Motherboard, has a deep dive article looking at the case, which is totally worth reading. I wanted to dig in, though, just on the craziness of the $929,977 number and how that came about. First off, it appears that the feds pushed the Tribune Company to inflate the numbers. The original estimate from the Tribune Company turned out to be well below the $5,000 threshold, let alone the $900k+ number:
Again, assuming Keys actually did all these things, it would make him something of an immature jerk. But it still seems like a huge stretch to turn that into nearly a million dollars in damages, directly due to a CFAA violation. Either way, it's yet another reminder that when the DOJ decides it wants to take you down, it can find almost anything to use against you.
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: cfaa, cfaa reform, damages, doj, matthew keys
Companies: tribune company
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What kind of judge lets this stand?
If the prosecution does not do its job, the judge should just throw out the case completely and see what sticks (namely see whether the prosecution bothers doing its job at the appellate court).
The prosecution has a job that's more serious than that of a court jester, and it should take its job more seriously than that. It represents the government's interest in letting courts find justice, and apparently this prosecutor cannot be interested in finding justice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What kind of judge lets this stand?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
... and what is that #9 item in the bill? -- Charging thousands of dollars for sending a single email?
On the other hand, maybe Tribune Company was thinking about getting into the military contracting business, and was just practicing on the billing end.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
year salary $60,000.
1. 1/2 lunch breaks -$5000.
2. Bathroom Break - $10,000.
3. Toilet paper -$5000.
4. Hand washing- (water/soap/electric hand dryer)-$5000
5. Breathing Company Air -$5000.
6. Recycling of Breathed Air -$5000.
7 Seating/Desk -$5000.
8. Lighting -$5000
9. Internet Service -$20,000
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Critic A: LA Times is bad
DOJ: That's about $20 million in damages for that comment. $10 million of it because somehow Fox news is related. CFAA applies.
That's a jail sentence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Easy to see what happened
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If not, the claim that the "$1000 per hour" should be viewed as a serious suggestion, especially since this is a criminal trial.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Keys admitted to sending the emails UNDER DURESS
I would still say, he allegedly sent the x-files emails.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reminds me of another case
Personally, I think the Tribune ought to be sanctioned for fraud on the court for providing testimony, under oath, that those are the true and factual damages.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
My personal favorite is #23 FOX Mulder to Jerry.
Imagine a viewer sends them an email, never gets a reply because it went straight to the spam folder and then the viewer gets a bill for $150.
I assume Mulder never got a reply because it is 2nd last on the list and "straight to spam folder" because there is not time.
Thinking about it... forget the #9 job. I want to get paid $150 for every email I ignore!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some judges are more interested in seeing "bad guys" go to jail than seeing justice done.
We've seen a lot of truly lame rulings here on TD. So we're kinda used to stupid or biased judges.
It happens all the time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Some judges are more interested in seeing "bad guys" go to jail than seeing justice done.
You are affording them a benefit of doubt they are unwilling but are in fact sworn to grant others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Joke" about having a bomb in your suitcase at the airport and you can be locked up, even if you clearly didn't have any such thing on you. The joke is often enough to prosecute.
"Joke" about lying to law enforcement specifically in order to get someone else locked up, and apparently that's fine. As long as you were joking, you're apparently not presenting falsified figures and you can get away with perjury.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And some people wonder
[ link to this | view in thread ]