Hacktivist Jeremy Hammond Gets 10 Years In Prison; Explains How FBI Gave Him The Targets To Hack

from the of-course-they-did dept

We wrote, earlier this year, about LulzSec/Antisec/Anonymous hacktivist Jeremy Hammond pleading guilty to hacking Stratfor. While the other Lulzsec hackers who were arrested in the UK got sentences of one to three years, the fact that here in the US we have the CFAA, and the fact that the DOJ saw another hacktivist to railroad, it was expected that Hammond would get a much longer sentence. Indeed, he did: he was sentenced today to ten years in prison plus another three years of supervised release.

No one denies that he broke into Stratfor's computers (as well as other sites and even governments). However, many people quite reasonably argue that he was doing so for the purposes of activism, not for personal wealth or benefits, and that fact should have been taken into account in his sentencing. The DOJ, of course, want to use Hammond as yet another example case of how they can throw the book at hacktivists. The Sparrow Project has a good account of what happened in the courtroom:

Jeremy’s lead counsel, Sarah Kunstler, who is 9 months pregnant and due to give birth today, delivered a passionate testimonial as to the person that Jeremy is, and the need for people like Jeremy during our changing socio-political landscape. She was followed by co-counsel, Susan Keller, who wept as she recalled her experiences reading the hundreds of letters from supporters to the court detailing the Jeremy Hammond’s selflessness and enthusiastic volunteerism. She pointed out that it was this same selflessness that motivated Jeremy’s actions in this case. She closed her testimony by underscoring that, “The centerpiece of our argument is a young man with high hopes and unbelievably laudable expectations in this world.”

They also include Hammond's statement, in which he clearly states why he did what he did, and repeatedly points out that most of the sites he hacked (including Stratfor and foreign governments) were done under the direction of Sabu (real name: Hector Xavier Monsegur) who had already turned into an FBI informant. In other words, he's suggesting that the FBI was more or less telling him who to hack, and then they get to turn around and throw the book at him.

The acts of civil disobedience and direct action that I am being sentenced for today are in line with the principles of community and equality that have guided my life. I hacked into dozens of high profile corporations and government institutions, understanding very clearly that what I was doing was against the law, and that my actions could land me back in federal prison. But I felt that I had an obligation to use my skills to expose and confront injustice--and to bring the truth to light.

Could I have achieved the same goals through legal means? I have tried everything from voting petitions to peaceful protest and have found that those in power do not want the truth to be exposed. When we speak truth to power we are ignored at best and brutally suppressed at worst. We are confronting a power structure that does not respect its own system of checks and balances, never mind the rights of it’s own citizens or the international community.

The full statement is long, but well worth reading. The court forced everyone to redact part of the speech -- where he names who else he hacked at the direction of Sabu, including foreign governments. When you think about this, it seems particularly obnoxious. Basically, the FBI had Sabu tell Hammond to hack into the computers of foreign governments and now Hammond gets the book thrown at him because of that. Does anyone think that the feds didn't make use of that access to foreign government computers? It's a pretty neat trick: trick a hacktivist to break into the computers of foreign governments for you and then throw him in jail for ten years.

In an interview Hammond gave to The Guardian prior to the sentencing, Hammond notes that his days of hacking "are done" but remains pretty defiant and supportive of hacktivism in general and against oppressive government action. He notes that one of the reasons he was such a target was he had access to an exploit that it appears the NSA didn't yet have, which allowed him to get into those foreign government servers:

“I felt betrayed, obviously. Though I knew these things happen. What surprised me was that Sabu was involved in so much strategic targeting, in actually identifying targets. He gave me the information on targets.”

Part of Sabu’s interest in him, he now believes, was that Hammond had access to advanced tools including one known as PLESK that allowed him to break into web systems used by large numbers of foreign governments. “The FBI and NSA are clearly able to do their own hacking of other countries. But when a new vulnerability emerges in internet security, sometimes hackers have access to tools that are ahead of them that can be very valuable,” he said.

In that same interview, he notes he never would have hacked Stratfor if it weren't for Sabu, noting he'd never even heard of the organization before that.

Clearly, Hammond broke the law. But it seems very, very wrong that the federal government clearly used him to break into places they wanted to get into (all of which now remains classified), and then threw the book at him and will lock him up for a decade.

Filed Under: cfaa, fbi, hacking, hacktivism, hector xavier monsegur, jeremy hammond, sabu, sentencing
Companies: stratfor

Alyssa Milano Claiming Trademark And Copyright On 'Hacktivist'

from the wait-a-second... dept

So, last week at San Diego ComiCon, you may have heard about how actress Alyssa Milano was launching her very own comic book along with Archaia Entertainment, called Hacktivist. As their press release explains:

Inspired by current events from around the world and Milano’s own philanthropic endeavors, Hacktivist is a fast-paced cyber-thriller about friendship and freedom in a time of war. The story follows Ed Hiccox and Nate Graft, the young founders of the world’s most innovative social media company who moonlight secretly as one of the most notorious black-hat hacker teams on the planet. When the U.S. government discovers their operation, they must face the real world beyond the code and choose between loyalty and what they believe to be is right.

Okay. Sure. At SDCC, to promo this, apparently they gave out 500 copies of a limited edition comic previewing some of the content from this upcoming title. The preview content... might not be my cup of tea and feels a bit too much like the hacking dialog in Swordfish (i.e., what Hollywood thinks hacking is) for my taste, but anything that takes the concept of hacktivism more mainstream certainly is a good thing. For what it's worth, I've heard from a few people that Milano is actually fairly up on these things, and the press release description of the inspiration behind the comic is not bad:

“I’m very involved with in global activism and philanthropy. I like the idea of everyday people doing good,” explained Milano. “My inspiration for Hacktivist is actually Jack Dorsey, the creator of Twitter and Square. I picture him leaving the office at night and going home, where he locks himself in his room and starts hacking to change the world.

Okay, I don't generally think of Dorsey as a hacktivist so much, but that's cool. Better than some other folks. Of course, during the SOPA fight, Milano spoke out against SOPA, so it might have been slightly cooler if she'd used someone like Aaron Swartz -- for whom the term is actually accurate -- as an inspiration, but Dorsey's definitely more well known.

But then there's this: Look closely and you'll see:

HACKTIVIST™ is © and TM 2013 by Alyssa Milano.

Er... considering just how closely hacktivism is associated with fighting back against the abuse of intellectual property like copyright and trademark to wall off the commons, this seems like a bit of a mistake. I'm sure this wasn't done to close off the term on purpose -- it's just "what you do" when you're releasing the comic book. But, you'd think that maybe, just maybe, when putting together a comic book called Hacktivist, you'd be a bit more sensitive to the fact that many hacktivists are fighting situations like this one. Now, to be fair, there doesn't seem to be any registered trademark application on the word yet -- so it could just be that the "trademark" refers to things like the specific logo used (though, then they shouldn't have needed to put that ™ after the word), and the copyright could refer to the specific content (though, given the subject matter, you'd think at least some sort of Creative Commons license might be more appropriate -- but that's their call). But, even if there's no ill intent here, just trying to get that trademark seems potentially questionable -- and it wouldn't be entirely surprising to find out down the road, years from now, that someone coming into possession of the trademark claims much more widespread ownership of the term, and that would be a big problem.

So, again, I don't think there's anything nefarious going on here, with anyone trying to really stake claim to "ownership" of a very common and widely used word -- but just the fact that Milano and Archaia didn't even seem to think about this or how it would look to actual hacktivists, seems, at the very least, careless. And, at worst, it might actually tick off a bunch of hacktivists, who won't look kindly at all at any suggestion that a Hollywood actress is suddenly claiming copyright and trademark on "hacktivist."

Update: Archaia has now published the following response:

“Archaia and Ms. Milano do claim trademark and copyright protection, as appropriate, for the book, the title, the characters, and content included of The Hacktivist. However, no claim is made to other uses of the term ‘hacktivist.’ In accord with Ms. Milano’s wishes, we support the attention to the issues of philanthropy and activism.”

That provides a bit of clarification, though it still seems they could have gone further in the spirit of many hacktivists. Still, I appreciate their willingness to address the issue.

Filed Under: alyssa milano, comicbooks, copyright, hacktivism, hacktivist, trademark
Companies: archaia entertainment

If The Gov't Wants To Stop Hactivists, It Should Look At Its Policy Choices First

from the the-right-way-and-the-wrong-way dept

As law enforcement continue to try to chase down every lead to figure out who was behind LulzSec, a bit of wisdom from Loz Kaye in the UK. He notes that efforts like LulzSec, Wikileaks, Anonymous and others are being driven by bad government policies, in which governments look to clamp down on free speech and shut down technologies they don't understand, just because some people might use them for things the government doesn't like. The end effect is actually driving more people to demonstrate just what the technology can be used for in protest.

LulzSec wasn't an isolated or unique phenomenon. People with passionate beliefs have been using new technological tools to effect change out of a sense of powerlessness. In the last year, I've watched 38 Degrees using the strength of association online to change government policy, WikiLeaks force transparency on those who'd rather run from it, even the amorphous mass that is Anonymous taking a stand on whatever issue they feel deserves their attention.

These tools are now themselves under attack. Lord Mandelson's last gift to us, the Digital Economy Act, is just one of a raft of "three strikes laws" worldwide that threaten to cut off households from the web. Buried in the coalition's Prevent strategy is the assertion that "internet filtering across the public estate is essential". Nor is it solely a British issue; Nicolas Sarkozy called for global online governance at the eG8 in his attempt to civilise the "wild west" of the web.

I don't think very many people in the government recognize this simple fact. They continue to treat these web-native movements as if they can be dealt with in the same manner as criminal operations. They may arrest a few people here or there, but that's not going to have the desired impact. If anything, it's only going to drive even more people to join the fray.

We've reached a critical juncture: either we sail headlong into escalating confrontation, or we attempt to change tack and reduce the tension by finding a democratic way forward, one that preserves our right to free association. From anonymous bloggers in Iran, to those using Twitter and Facebook in Tahrir Square and even teenagers in the bedrooms of Essex, there is a common thread. A feeling of persecution and dismay that our freedoms are being suppressed.

Of course, I can't see any government today smart enough to recognize this. It seems that they're going to continue down this path that they've chosen, and then act surprised when it fails to have much of an impact, other than to escalate the problems.

Filed Under: governments, hacktivism, hacktivists, policies