Another Whistleblower Highlights The Futility Of The 'Proper Channels'

from the shut-up,-they-investigated dept

Yet another whistleblower is detailing their depressing experiences with the "proper channels." Writing for The Intercept, former CIA imagery analyst Patrick Eddington discusses the attempts the CIA made to prevent information on US soldiers' exposure to chemical weapons during the Gulf War from being made public.

My own experience in 1995-96 is illustrative. Over a two-year period working with my wife, Robin (who was a CIA detailee to a Senate committee at the time), we discovered that, contrary to the public statements by then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell and other senior George H. W. Bush administration officials (including CIA Director John Deutch), American troops had in fact been exposed to chemical agents during and after the 1991 war with Saddam Hussein. While the Senate Banking Committee under then-Chairman Don Riegle, D-Mich., was trying to uncover the truth of this, officials at the Pentagon and CIA were working to bury it.

When Eddington objected to the burial attempts, he was placed under investigation by the CIA. The agency also questioned his wife, asking if Eddington would find his "conscience" more important than his secrecy agreements with the CIA. What the CIA seemed completely unconcerned with was the subject matter it obviously didn't want anyone to discuss.

The agency didn’t care about helping to find out why hundreds of thousands of American Desert Storm veterans were ill. All it cared about was whether I’d keep my mouth shut about what the secret documents and reports in its databases had to say about the potential or actual chemical exposures to our troops.

With the proper channels in lockdown mode, Eddington went in another direction. He published a book on his whistleblowing experience, but only after his lawsuit forced the agency to declassify documents it hastily reclassified when it became apparent Eddington was going public. Faced with the inevitable, the CIA finally disclosed to the public that it had been burying information on troops' exposure to chemical weapons during the operations in Kuwait and Iraq.

And while Eddington had to deal with the CIA's investigation and attempts to bury both him and the info he was trying to alert lawmakers about, those actually involved in the suppression escaped unscathed.

None of the CIA or Pentagon officials who perpetrated the cover-up were fired or prosecuted.

Eddington goes on to note that Bill Binney suffered through the same experience when trying to blow the whistle on NSA surveillance. Binney's experience at the hands of the proper channels -- following an attempt to institute a less intrusive surveillance program -- led directly to Snowden's decision to cut and run after being thwarted in his attempts to have his concerns addressed.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from years of whistleblower prosecutions is that the government truly isn't interested in listening to blown whistles.

We now live in a country where the committees charged with reining in excessive domestic spying instead too often act as apologists and attack dogs for the agencies they are charged with regulating.

Filed Under: cia, patrick eddington, proper channels, punishment, whistleblowers

Government Again Shows Its Inconsistency On Punishing The Mishandling Of Classified Documents

from the please-fill-out-IR-451(a)-'INTERNAL-RETALIATION'-form-completely dept

Mishandling classified material can result in a variety of punishments, depending on who you are. If you're a presidential candidate, the routing of hundreds of sensitive documents through an unsecured, private email server might result in a few conversations with the FBI, but not in any criminal charges. If you're a retired general, routing classified material to your biographer/mistress might result in criminal charges, but not any time served. If you're a whistleblower taking your complaints to the press, you'll likely see some jail time to go along with your destroyed career.

And if you're a Marine Corps officer trying to warn others of trouble headed their way, you're more likely to be treated like Jason Brezler than Hillary Clinton, Gen. David Petraeus, or even former CIA Director Leon Panetta.

Brezler is facing dismissal from the Marine Corps for mishandling a classified document -- one containing information about an allegedly corrupt Afghan police chief who had already been kicked off a US base by Brezler himself.

[T]he local police chief, Sarwar Jan, turned into a problem.

"Sarwar Jan, he was a threat to not only the Afghans but our own Marines," Brezler says.

The chief was maybe linked to the Taliban. He was also alleged to be a pedophile who preyed on local boys — something alarmingly common among Afghan warlords.

Recently there's been a debate about whether U.S. forces should tolerate Afghan allies who keep kids at their barracks. Back in 2010, there was no policy. Brezler couldn't fire Sarwar Jan, but he could kick him off the base.

"We put Sarwar Jan on the next helicopter. And, once he left, we could have probably had a parade the next day through the bazaar. The Afghans were absolutely elated," he says.

After returning stateside, Brezler received an email from an officer located in Afghanistan informing him that Sarwar Jan was once again residing in the base Brezler had kicked him out of -- and had brought a group of underage boys with him. Brezler attached a classified report detailing the allegations against Jan and hit "Reply All."

The allegations about Jan weren't all that unusual. The sexual and physical abuse of minors is considered standard operating procedure by many Afghans in powerful positions.

Rampant sexual abuse of children has long been a problem in Afghanistan, particularly among armed commanders who dominate much of the rural landscape and can bully the population. The practice is called bacha bazi, literally “boy play,” and American soldiers and Marines have been instructed not to intervene — in some cases, not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases, according to interviews and court records.

In some cases, Marines have been told to ignore the behavior. In other cases, they've been punished for trying to prevent it. Brezler's concerns about Jan's arrival at another base were never addressed. Instead, the Marines chose to go after him for sending a classified document to other Marines. Brezler even went through the proper channels, reporting himself for mishandling sensitive information. He was told it was just "minor spillage" -- something that happened occasionally but generally without serious repercussions.

Less than three weeks after Brezler's warning went out (and was apparently ignored), a 17-year-old Afghan male who had been living in Jan's quarters stole a weapon and killed three unarmed Marines. When the Marine Corps resisted turning over information to the victims' families, Brezler sought the help of Rep. Peter King. King took this info to the media and that's when things got worse for Brezler.

And that's when the U.S. Marine Corps got serious — about investigating Jason Brezler.

"Almost a year had gone by from the time, he had moved on, the Marine Corps had moved on," says lawyer Mike Bowe. "A news story comes out that reveals that he's talking to Congressman King about these murders, and three days later he is sent to a Board of Inquiry to be kicked out of the Marine Corps."

The inquiry was retaliation, Bowe says, for embarrassing the Marine Corps brass. He says there were hundreds of similar cases of "spillage" the same year, and only two were punished. A Pentagon inspector general's report concluded it was not retaliation.

At this point, the Marine Corps is offering him an honorable discharge -- a "thanks, but no thanks" for his attempt to warn his fellow soldiers about the long list of allegations against police chief Sarwar Jan. Brezler sued for full reinstatement as a Marine and the discharge has been put on hold pending a possible jury trial later this year.

There are a handful of disturbing aspects of the Marine Corps' dismissal of Brezler, not the least of which is its decision to ramp up its efforts to rid itself of him after it had been publicly embarrassed by a US congress member. It also highlights the absurdity -- and danger -- inherent to the military's weirdly-selective non-interventionist policy: one deployed by an outside force playing World Police within its borders (decidedly interventionist) that draws the line at preventing the sexual abuse of minors on its bases by local officials.

The decision to go after the messenger -- one that self-reported his mishandling of sensitive information -- shows the government, by and large, cares more about protecting itself from embarrassment than solving its problems.

Filed Under: classified info, jason brezler, punishment, whistleblowing

India Criminalizes Merely Visiting A Copyright Infringing 'Blocked' Site

from the what-a-mess dept

The Indian film industry has long had a complicated relationship with piracy. After all, India's Bollywood regularly produces the most films of any other country in the world (it's often neck and neck with Nigeria). That seems to be a sign that the market is pretty healthy. After all, filmmakers keep telling us that piracy is going to destroy their reasons for making films... and yet here's a market that's making tons and tons of films (many of which are excellent). And, as we've noted in the past, the film studios in India are making lots of money, in part because they're competing effectively against piracy. And, then you even have some Indian filmmakers who recognize that piracy helps spread the message of their films to a wider audience.

And yet... because it's (oooooh! scary!) "piracy," there will always be some who freak out and come up with bad ideas. Apparently, one of those bad ideas is now the law. After already putting in place dumb site blocking laws that force ISPs, under court order, to block access to sites deemed hubs of infringement, the Indian government now says that getting around one of those blocks (hi there, VPN user!) is a criminal act that could get you three years in jail.

"What are you in for?" "Me? I used a VPN to access Archive.org."

Think I'm joking? The Internet Archive was included in the ban list. As was GitHub and Vimeo.

So why is the Indian government doing this kind of thing, despite everything noted in the first paragraph about the thriving and successful Indian creative industries? Perhaps it's because of absolutely bullshit articles like this one at "The News Minute" claiming that Indian films gross $2 billion, but piracy makes 35% more. I found that article because well-known copyright maximalist, Canadian lawyer Barry Sookman, happily tweeted the link. But you have to be pretty bad at understanding copyright law if you think it's a good article. After all, it struck me as odd for the headline to note that "piracy" makes more money than the Indian film industry. And that's because it's not true. Yes, the article starts out by claiming it does:

India's film industry, said to be the largest globally with some 1,000 movies produced each year, earns around $2 billion from legitimate sources such as screening at theatres, home videos and TV rights. But with $2.7 billion, piracy earns 35 per cent more, and a way out has proved elusive.

Where is this $2.7 billion coming from and where is it going? And if it were really true that piracy "earned" so much more money, uh, then shouldn't the Indian studios embrace piracy and start making that money for itself? But, of course, the answer is that that's not what's actually happening. It's just how the terrible reporter at The News Minute confusingly explains things, and copyright lawyers like Sookman happily retweet because it fits into his narrative. But you have to dig deeper into the article to find out that the $2.7 million "earned" by pirates is actually just the made up number of the value of movies downloaded.

"The infringing copies appear online within few hours of a film release," Singh told IANS, and added: "The Indian film industry loses around Rs 18,000 crore ($2.7 billion) and over 60,000 jobs every year because of piracy."

You see, here they're now calling the $2.7 billion "losses." Because that's a made up number that the industry wants you to believe it would have made if piracy did not exist. But that's not money "earned" by piracy. And pretending it is is incredibly dishonest. After lots of hand-wringing and whining about evil pirates, finally, at the end of the article, you have someone who speaks sense, filmmaker Anurag Basu, who recognizes the way you beat piracy is by competing with it:

"Piracy is working because people can buy a (pirated) DVD for Rs 100 and a whole family can watch it. We have to offer that kind of entertainment at that price. It has to be as easy to get an original DVD as it is to get a pirated one," he said.

But, instead of doing that, the government is buying into ridiculous claims about pirates "earning" more money, and thus they're now trying to criminalize merely accessing a website that they've banned for having infringing material. Websites like the Internet Archive and Vimeo.

Filed Under: blocks, bollywood, copyright, crime, india, piracy, punishment, site blocking

Man Who Doxxed Dozens Of People, Engaged In Nineteen 'Swattings', Nets Only One Year In Prison

from the cyber-sentencing-still-mostly-incoherent dept

The treatment of all things "cyber" by the government is incredibly inconsistent. Give someone a password so they can deface a website for 40 minutes and it's two years in jail. Doxx, SWAT, and cyberstalk multiple people and the best the court can do is two years minus time served. The end result is one year in prison for Mir Islam, who doxxed multiple celebrities and politicians, as well as called in fake threats that resulted in the swatting of at least nineteen people, including security researcher Brian Krebs, who uncovered Islam's doxxing tactics.

Krebs' investigation of Islam and his abuse of free credit report services to obtain personal information on a variety of public figures led to the following:

Peeved that I’d outed his methods for doxing public officials, Islam helped orchestrate my swatting the very next day. Within the span of 45 minutes, KrebsOnSecurity.com came under a sustained denial-of-service attack which briefly knocked my site offline.

At the same time, my hosting provider received a phony letter from the FBI stating my site was hosting illegal content and needed to be taken offline. And, then there was the swatting which occurred minutes after that phony communique was sent.

[...]

Nearly a dozen heavily-armed officers responded to the call, forcing me out of my home at gunpoint and putting me in handcuffs before the officer in charge realized it was all a hoax.

The response to the hoax call on Krebs' residence was, by comparison, minimal. Islam also called in a fake active shooter report at the University of Arizona campus. This was apparently in retaliation to a cheerleader's failure to realize Islam's cyberstalking was just another way of saying "I love you."

A woman representing an anonymous “Victim #3” of Islam’s was appearing in lieu of a cheerleader at the University of Arizona that Islam admitted to cyberstalking for several months. When the victim stopped responding to Islam’s overtures, he phoned in an active shooter threat to the local police there that a crazed gunman was on the loose at the University of Arizona campus.

According to Robert Sommerfeld, police commander for the University of Arizona, that 2013 swatting incident involved 54 responding officers, all of whom were prevented from responding to a real emergency as they moved from building to building and room to room at the university, searching for a fictitious assailant. Sommerfeld estimates that Islam’s stunt cost local responders almost $40,000, and virtually brought the business district surrounding the university to a standstill for the better part of the day.

Worse, some of Islam's swatting efforts and cyberstalking occurred while he was "cooperating" with federal prosecutors following his arrest for attempting to sell stolen credit cards to undercover agents.

Federal prosecutors wanted to see Islam jailed for nearly four years -- towards the upper reaches of the mandatory sentencing guidelines. Instead, the judge handed down a sentence of two years. Islam has been in federal custody since July 2015 and that time is being credited towards his sentence, meaning it will only be another year at the most before Islam is free again.

The credit for time served makes sense and the departure from the upper limits of the guidelines is something I would be extremely hesitant to suggest is a bad thing. Prosecutors wanted a much longer sentence, and the allegations here would seem to justify a lengthier imprisonment for Islam.

The problem with the government's fear of anything cyber-related is that the default mode for prosecutors is almost always the upper reaches of the sentencing guidelines, even when the severity of the criminal activity doesn't appear to warrant this sort of punitive sentencing. The government sought a longer sentence for Matthew Keys' minimal participation in a 40-minute headline alteration at a news website. Someone who endangered lives of dozens of people by sending heavily-armed law enforcement officers after them -- in addition to doxxing a large number of public figures and participating in multiple cyberstalkings -- was apparently only deemed dangerous enough to warrant a 46-month sentence, as compared to the 60 months sought in the Keys case.

Then there's this:

Judge Moss, in explaining his brief deliberation on arriving at Islam’s two-year (attenuated) sentence, said he hoped to send a message to others who would endeavor to engage in swatting attacks.

Swatting has the potential to kill people, something clearly not reflected by the "severity" of this sentence.

As Brian Krebs points out, it does send a message, although certainly not the one the judge intended. It says you can endanger the lives of others without seriously affecting your own freedom. It also sends the message that the government -- as a whole -- will remain incoherent and inconsistent in its handling of cybercrime.

Filed Under: brian krebs, crime, dox, doxxing, mir islam, punishment, swatting

Judge Responds To Open Records Request By Having Requester Indicted, Arrested

from the FOIA-TO-JAIL.-FOIA-DIRECTLY-TO-JAIL.-DO-NOT-PASS-GO. dept

We've seen government officials do some pretty questionable things to avoid turning over documents to FOIA requesters. The most common method is just to stick requesters with a bill they can't pay. Stonewalling is popular, too -- so much so that the federal government sends out "Still interested?" notices to people whose requests have been backburnered for years.

More rarely, officials will race requesters to the courthouse, hoping to secure a judgment in their favor stating that they've already fully complied with a FOIA request -- even when they've done nothing but withhold and redact. Stripped of all the legal wrangling, this is basically the government suing individuals for asking for documents, forcing taxpayers to go out-of-pocket if they hope to counter the officials' assertions.

But one thing we haven't seen is a government official securing a grand jury indictment against open records requesters… for making open records requests.

A North Georgia newspaper publisher was indicted on a felony charge and jailed overnight last week – for filing an open-records request.

Fannin Focus publisher Mark Thomason, along with his attorney Russell Stookey, were arrested on Friday and charged with attempted identity fraud and identity fraud. Thomason was also accused of making a false statement in his records request.

The pair had been going after local judge Brenda Weaver and other court staff for some time, tracing back to her predecessor's (former judge Roger Bradley) use of a racial slur in the courtroom. The slur was attached to a defendant's name, and this slur was repeated by the district attorney and court deputies. Thomason acquired a copy of a transcript only to find the repeated use of the slur by court deputies had been removed. He asked for the audio recording of the hearing and was rejected.

This led to an article by Thomason in which he noted the missing slurs and presumably questioned the court stenographer's skills/honesty. The court stenographer sued Thomason for defamation, seeking $1.6 million in damages. The suit was dropped when it became clear Thomason, like many journalists, is judgment-proof -- i.e., there's no way he had anything close to $1.6 million laying around. The case was closed by a judge who determined Thomason had no proof that the transcript was inaccurate.

The court stenographer then filed a motion to recover legal fees, despite the fact that then-Judge Bradley had already cut her a check for $16,000 to reimburse her for her legal costs. That led to the current run of subpoenas and records requests in which Thomason hoped to show a judge that the stenographer had already recovered her legal fees.

Judge Weaver's response to this lawful dig for pertinent records was to work in concert with the district attorney to bring charges against the pair -- claiming ridiculously that "Thomason would use the banking information on those checks for himself."

Weaver's accusations -- pushed past a grand jury by District Attorney Alison Sosebee -- are exactly that: she's accusing Thomason of seeking to take funds from Weaver's bank account. According to Count One of the indictment [PDF], Thomason's subpoena -- which sought front/back copies of checks issued from the account -- was nothing more than a failed attempt at identity fraud.

...with intent to unlawfully appropriate resources of said victim, contrary to the laws of this State…

The next count is just charge stacking: attempt to commit identity fraud. The third, however, seeks to make the filing of a public records request a criminal act.

…[w]hen the accused requested documents pursuant to the Open Records Act… to Robert P. Jones [Chairman of the Pickens County Board of Commissioners] and specifically requested "the actual cleared checks (front/back) that Pickens County had written to Judge Brenda Weaver and Judge Roger Bradley for Pickens County's portion of the quarterly operating account expenses for the judges from the years 2013, 2014, and 2015" and further stated "after reviewing only the checks written on behalf of Fannin County for the 2015 year and finding that, according to several banks, some of these checks appear to have not been deposited but cashed illegally," knowing the same to contain a false and fictitious representation…

In short, Judge Weaver claims the requesters lied on their request... which is apparently against the law... somehow. While the statute does forbid the use of false statements in documents submitted to officials, there's no indication it was meant to cover allegedly inaccurate assertions made in open records requests. On top of that, the quoted request makes it clear the assertion of illegality was made by "several banks," not the requesters themselves.

It could be that Judge Weaver is simply trying to shield courtroom employees from what she apparently views as harassing behavior. But the decision to handle the situation with a grand jury indictment, rather than litigating the open records request itself, definitely gives the situation the appearance of a concerted coverup. The subpoenas may be more legally questionable, but the application of this statute to an open records request looks like someone with a keen interest in keeping requested documents out of the hands of the journalist seeking them.

Filed Under: brenda weaver, foia, identity fraud, mark thomason, open records, press freedom, punishment, russell stookey
Companies: fannin focus

UK Gov't Pushing For 10-Year Jail Sentences For Copyright Infringement Based On ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

from the faith-based-policy dept

For many years, we've pointed out that so much policymaking around copyright law is what we'd argue to be purely "faith-based." The fact that there is little to no actual evidence that stronger copyright protections lead to better outcomes for the public, the economy or for society is ignored by people who just know it must be true. And the constant assertions about extending and expanding copyright always seem to come from this same faith-based positioning. An exploration into the empirical basis for copyright law finds that there basically is none and the reason we have copyright is because a couple of centuries ago some people thought it was a good idea, and no one's really bothered to check since then.

One of the most ridiculous examples of this "faith-based" reasoning is the belief, among many, that the way to stop widespread copyright infringement is just to increase the punishment for those who are caught. Sure, you can understand the armchair economists' reasoning here: if you increase the punishment, you're increasing the "cost," which should decrease the activity. But, that's just wrong on many, many levels. First, let's take a step out of the copyright realm and into the criminal justice realm. After vastly expanding punishment (via things like "three strikes" laws), many, many people (even those who supported such programs) are now admitting that long sentences don't actually do much to deter crime. While there were some studies in the 80s and 90s suggesting long sentences reduce crime, more recent (and much more thorough) studies have basically rejected that view. A recent survey of many studies in the area found little support for the idea that longer sentences deter criminal activity.

A bunch of other, even more recent, studies agree. A massive report from the University of Toronto goes through the history of the support for harsher sentencing, and a ton of historical and modern research, and concludes:

At this point, we think it is fair to say that we know of no reputable criminologist who has looked carefully at the overall body of research literature on “deterrence through sentencing” who believes that crime rates will be reduced, through deterrence, by raising the severity of sentences handed down in criminal courts.

The evidence supporting this conclusion has been accumulating for decades. In the 1970s, thoughtful reviewers were cautious in their conclusions, suggesting only that the deterrent impact of harsh sentences had not been adequately demonstrated. More recently, we, and others, have been more definitive in our conclusions: crime is not deterred, generally, by harsher sentences.

Another major study, from two years ago, by the National Research Council more or less says the same thing: "the evidence base demonstrates that lengthy prison sentences are ineffective as a crime control measure." Another recent research report, which also delves deeply into the arguments from the 70s and 80s now concludes: "The empirical work of the past thirty-five years has presented evidence that some of the deterrence we thought that we were likely to get was not, in fact, forthcoming.... " Hell, even the National Institute of Justice, the "evaluation" agency that's a part of the US Justice Department (which regularly pushes for harsher punishment) says directly on its website:

Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime.

Laws and policies designed to deter crime are ineffective partly because criminals know little about the sanctions for specific crimes. Seeing a police officer with handcuffs and a radio is more likely to influence a criminal’s behavior than passing a new law increasing penalties.

That same page further notes that "sending an offender to prison isn't a very effective way to deter crime."

At this point, you have to be willfully ignoring the evidence to argue that throwing people in jail for a long time is a way to deter crime. The reasons why the simple theory at the top of this post is wrong are that (1) most people committing crimes don't expect to get caught and (2) many people who are committing crimes don't even know what punishment might be, or vastly misunderstand the likely punishment.

Okay, so let's jump back into the copyright world. For reasons that are beyond comprehension, the UK government has announced plans to try to put copyright infringers in jail for 10 years. The UK's Intellectual Property Office recently released a report, following a consultation on this issue, in which it clearly supports a 10-year sentence for infringement, arguing:

The UK is frequently cited as the world leader in IP enforcement, and as Minister for IP I want to do everything I can to preserve this standing. The provision of a maximum ten year sentence is designed to send a clear message to criminals that exploiting the intellectual property of others online without their permission not acceptable.

The report also states, unequivocally:

The Government believes that online offences should be treated no less seriously than their physical counterparts. Harmonising these will provide a deterrent effect to criminals and, where criminality continues, provide for tangible punitive action.

Notice, of course, that there is no citation for this view. And, also, the fact that it clearly contradicts a ton of empirical research, as discussed above. Perhaps noticing the same thing, Kieren McCarthy at the Register sent a FOIA request to the Intellectual Property Office asking them where the 10 year maximum sentence idea came from. The answer? The IPO just made it up based on... nothing.

Such information was derived from our analysis of the evidence and opinion provided to us by a wide spectrum of interested parties, over the consultation period.

No empirical understanding of the issues of punishment and deterrence. No actual understanding of the issues. Just a bunch of people gave us their opinions, and we just plucked 10 years out of thin air. And, of course, as McCarthy notes, even that line above is clearly untruthful, since the vast, vast majority of the submissions provided to the IPO opposed the 10-year sentence proposal, which the IPO then stuck with anyway. In the IPO's response to McCarthy, it also cited a couple of studies concerning copyright, but both of those studies advise against such an increase in sentencing.

So it appears that the Intellectual Property Office is focused on increasing criminal penalties for copyright infringement to 10 years in jail based on proactively and willfully ignoring the empirical evidence both in the criminal justice world and in the copyright world.

And then they wonder why the public doesn't respect copyright law?

Filed Under: copyright, deterrence, evidence based, facts, faith based, ipo, jail terms, punishment, sentencing, uk

The Completely Nonsensical Differences In Punishment For Revenge Porn Kings

from the none-of-this-makes-sense dept

Earlier this week, Hunter Moore -- the guy who basically invented the concept of revenge porn with his "Is Anyone Up" site -- was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in jail along with a $2,000 fine... and he has to pay $145.70 in "restitution" to a single victim. Moore was arrested for violating the CFAA, and as we noted at the time, it may be one of the few legitimate uses of the CFAA. He didn't just run a revenge porn site, he hired a guy, Charlie Evens, who got a similar sentence a week ago, to hack into the computers of unsuspecting women, and swipe naked photos of them to put on his site. The sickening bit: that "$145.70" in "restitution"? That's how much Moore paid Evens (also, Evens is jointly liable for that money, meaning that Moore might not even pay it). It's difficult to understand why the $145.70 makes any sense at all as the "harm" caused to the anonymous woman "L.B." whose computer got hacked into.

As Sarah Jeong at Vice's Motherboard notes, the reason that Moore's sentence seems so light is because of the nature of the plea bargain he agreed to with the government:

The tiny amount of restitution has partly to do with Moore’s plea bargain. He pleaded guilty to counts 2 and 9 of the indictment (which had a total of fifteen counts)—one count under the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act, and one count of aggravated identity theft. Counts 2 and 9 relate only to one victim, L.B.

So because he's only guilty on those two counts, there's just that single victim. Even so, the tiny restitution seems a bit bizarre. It's also hard to square this CFAA "punishment" with a case like Matthew Keys', who was recently found guilty of sharing a password that resulted in a brief (40 minute) defacement of the LA Times website. Yet, in that case, it was argued that he caused almost a million dollars in damages, and will be sentenced next month (with the prosecution supposedly asking for something less than five years).

Meanwhile, it's still bizarre to compare the result of this case, with other similar cases. Kevin Bollaert, who created the similar revenge porn site "YouGotPosted" was originally sentenced to 18 years in jail, along with paying $15,000 in restitution -- though his sentence was later reduced to eight years in prison and another 10 years of mandatory supervision. That length of time seemed a bit extreme.

And then there's Craig Brittain, whose IsAnybodyDown website copied Hunter Moore's with a unique addition: creating a totally fake lawyer who you could pay to get your photos and information taken off the site (Bollaert copied this model from Brittain). Brittain just got off with a wrist slap, and has been busy trying to hide this fact with abusive DMCA notices, while at the same time hilariously trying to start an Uber competitor with his buddy and revenge porn collaborator, Chance Trahan, last seen pretending to be Daymond John. Trahan never got into any legal trouble for his role in the revenge porn business and, if you want to be amused, you should read his... er.... "interview" with Rolling Stone about it.

And then there's Casey Meyering, who ran WinByState (don't ask), which was another revenge porn site, that also copied Brittain's extortionate "pay us to take down your info" model, and was recently sentenced to three years in jail. It's good to see these guys getting punished, though the randomness in the punishment and sentencing seems problematic. Moore's sentencing, in particular, seems bizarre, considering that it involved the CFAA, at a time when the CFAA is widely abused to create HUGE punishments for things that many people don't think are all that bad. Moore, on the other hand, appeared to clearly violate both the spirit and letter of the CFAA for clearly bad purposes -- and gets off with something of a wrist slap in comparison.

Filed Under: casey meyering, cfaa, charlie evens, chase trahan, craig brittain, hunter moore, kevin bollaert, punishment, restitution, revenge porn

Microsoft Lobbying Group Forces 'Pirate' To Get 200,000 Views On Anti-Piracy Video... Whole Thing Backfires

from the 'education'-campaign dept

The history of anti-piracy activities by the legacy entertainment and software industries always seems to focus on the mistaken idea that if only the public were "more educated" piracy would magically go away. That's never been true. In fact, nearly every attempt at an education campaign hasn't just failed to work, it's often actively backfired and been mocked and parodied. And yet, if you talk to politicians and industry folks, they still seem to think that "more education" will magically work next time. One can only wonder what the hell the geniuses at the Software Alliance (the BSA -- which used to be the "Business Software Alliance" but has dropped the "Business" part, but not the "B" in its name) were thinking when they decided to "settle" with a guy who apparently uploaded some Microsoft software in the Czech Republic. The terms of the settlement required him to take part in a "professionally produced" anti-piracy video and that the video needed to get 200,000 views on YouTube or he might face having to pay damages in court.

The BSA is a well-known front for Microsoft, and has a long history of rather ridiculous claims about "piracy," so I guess it's little surprise that it's now engaged in out and out propaganda, but done so badly that it's turned the whole thing into a laughingstock. The whole "compelled speech" aspect of the settlement, including the requirement to get so many views, strikes basically everyone as ridiculous and stupid. Press attention has of course propelled the video to well over 200,000 thousand views at this point, and many of the YouTube comments are completely mocking the campaign -- and noting that they're watching the video to help the accused be let off the hook. The video is in Czech, but even so it's hilarious. It has the same sort of ominous production values as the old "You wouldn't download a car!" ads that have been mocked for years as well: It really highlights just how out of touch folks at the BSA are, in that anyone actually thought this kind of thing would help it in any way, rather than making it a continued laughingstock.

Filed Under: czech republic, piracy, punishment, settlement, video
Companies: bsa, microsoft

DEA Agents Caught Soliciting Prostitutes Rewarded With Light Punishments, Bonus Checks

from the saving-throw-on-'integrity-check'-fails dept

At the end of September, Brad Heath and Meghan Hoyer of USA Today published a DEA disciplinary log they'd obtained through an FOIA request. The document was obviously misnamed, as it showed plenty of misconduct by DEA agents, but not much in the way of discipline.

Damning, yes, but apparently we still haven't scraped the bottom of the DEA's disciplinary barrel. The DOJ's Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, has released a new report on DEA misconduct -- specifically dealing with the DEA agents who were caught soliciting prostitutes, engaging in "sex parties" and harassing local employees while working overseas.

None of the 14 agents involved lost their job. Two still remain at their overseas posts and the rest (with the exception of one retiree) are still working as agents or supervisory agents. Apparently, DEA misconduct pays pretty well. (h/t PoliceMisconduct.net)

Although none of the 14 individuals received promotions, we found that in 10 instances, 8 employees received bonuses, awards, or other favorable personnel actions, contrary to DEA policy.

The agency's policy states that agents under investigation are not entitled to collect bonuses for three years after being disciplined for "serious misconduct." Any agent seeking advancement/bonuses must be subjected to an "integrity check" by the DEA's HR department to ensure they are not currently under investigation or subject to other disciplinary actions. If the agent fails to clear the "integrity check," the information is passed on to the Chief Inspector, who has the power to override the three-year waiting period.

Exceptions were made. But the Inspector General's office is damned if it can figure out why.

The eight employees who received awards were subjects in an ongoing OPR investigation in which the offenses involved integrity and/or sexual harassment issues, with some of the employees serving as supervisors and managers. In many instances, we could not determine the reason why exceptions were made and we were unable to determine when, or if, an integrity check was performed, the results of the integrity check, or the reason for the approval of the proposed personnel action, because the DEA was unable to provide the OIG with complete documentation.

IG Horowitz is very familiar with the DEA's reluctance to provide documentation. He took his battle with the DEA and FBI over the release of pertinent information to Congress, sailing over the head of the DOJ. In a letter to a Congressional committee, Horowitz threatened these agencies' budgets by pointing out to legislators that the DOJ components are not allowed to use their funding to thwart their oversight.

But the DEA may have a not-very-legitimate excuse for not handing over documents. It apparently doesn't care much for recordkeeping, even when it involves a regional supervisor who "failed" to report his underlings' hiring of prostitutes and brothel patronage.

The DEA also told us that it was unable to provide us with any documents that reflect when the counseling session occurred with the Regional Director, the DEA Administrator, and the Deputy Administrator, or what matters they discussed. Given the gravity of the allegations, and the importance of keeping records related to misconduct reviews, we are concerned that the DEA was unable to provide any written documentation confirming that the counseling occurred and the substance of the counseling.

This official -- who was apparently given an undocumented tongue-lashing -- landed a $12,000 bonus. This was his reward for covering up the misconduct of his agents.

A Supervisory Special Agent who did nothing to prevent "sex parties" with prostitutes from occurring at DEA offices (arranged by local law enforcement officials) was given three bonuses totalling $8,500 -- all while still under investigation.


In the private sector, soliciting prostitutes while on the clock is a good way to get yourself fired. In the DEA, where integrity is a must -- considering the constant temptation of money and drugs -- it's barely worth a two-week suspension. Most agents saw single-digit suspensions, while others only received "letters of caution." And a regional director overseeing all of this received nothing but an alleged, completely undocumented verbal rebuke. At the DEA, the only thing better than the lack of serious discipline is the bonus checks agents receive while still under investigation.

Filed Under: bad behavior, dea, punishment

DailyDirt: What (Not) To Do With Smart Kids...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Last week, lots of people were outraged that a 14yo kid was handcuffed and arrested for bringing a homemade clock to school. Some folks tried to point out that such extracurricular projects should never be brought to school... because we live in a "day and age" of terror or something. That suggestion -- that kids need to somehow restrict their enthusiasm for trying to impress their teachers with something they've made outside of school -- is awful. The education system is often faulted for failing to improve test scores and leaving more than "no children" behind. However, Ahmed Mohamed's experience highlights that schools might want to start thinking more about how to identify talent and nurture skills that are valuable beyond taking tests.

• High-ability students have not been well-studied to determine how they might best be served by teachers. Should they be allowed to skip grades or just specific classes? Should teachers give them extra projects? Does class size matter for high-ability students? It's a shame that many gifted children are overlooked -- or that they are recognized (hopefully in a positive way), but that no one is certain quite what to do with them. [url]
• An 11yo boy in a gifted-and-talented program in Virginia brought a leaf to school -- that was mistakenly thought to be a marijuana leaf. The result was charges of marijuana possession in juvenile court, a year of suspension, and probation terms that mean he'll be searched for drugs every day, twice a day. Quite a punishment. For. A. Leaf. [url]
• Longer school days and more school days in a year seem like good ideas -- but making kids stay in school longer isn't necessarily a good thing. Learning is generally not taught as a joyful, fun thing to do, but a chore -- and making that chore more difficult and tiring isn't a recipe for creating a society of lifetime learners. [url]
• In 2013, a then-16yo Kiera Wilmot brought a science fair project to her high school in Florida. It wasn't a particularly novel experiment, mixing toilet bowl cleaner (some hydrochloric acid) with aluminum foil. However, the reaction (excuse the chemistry pun) was far greater than the smoke and gases. Wilmot was arrested, charged with two felonies, and had to attend a different school for troubled teens. Thankfully, she was allowed back to her original school for her senior year, and she's moved on to college without a criminal record following her. But how about we try not to jump to the worst conclusions about kids, especially when all the evidence points to nerdy hobbies that should be encouraged? [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: ahmed mohamed, crime, education, kiera wilmot, learning, marijuana, punishment, schools, teachers