Journalist Faces Decades In Prison For “Defacing” Newspaper Site

Journalist Faces Decades In Prison For “Defacing” Newspaper Site


A SOCIAL MEDIA JOURNALIST IS
FACING TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN PRISON FOR HELPING HACKERS HACK
INTO THE LA TIMES WEBSITE. JOURNALIST MATTHEW KEYS, WHO
WORKED FOR REUTERS UNTIL RECENTLY, APPARENTLY WORKED WITH
ANONYMOUS IN ORDER TO GIVE THEM ACCESS TO THE LA TIMES, AND THEN
THEY PROCEEDED TO DEFACE THE WEBSITE. IN SOME CASES ñ I’M
SORRY, LET ME ñ ACCORDING TO GAWKER, MATTHEW KEYS, THE
FORMER DEPUTY SOCIAL MEDIA EDITOR AT REUTERS, HAS BEEN
FOUND GUILTY OF THREE CRIMINAL COUNTS IN FEDERAL COURT. HE
FACES TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN PRISON FOR FACILITATING THE
DEBASEMENT OF THE LA TIMES WEBSITE. KEYS WAS INDICTED IN
2013 AFTER BEING ACCUSED OF PROVIDING ANONYMOUS WITH THE
LOGIN CREDENTIALS FOR THE TRIBUNE COMPANY,
AND ENCOURAGING THEM TO ‘FUCK SHIT UP.’ HE DID
IDENTIFY HIMSELF ON AN INTERNET CHAT FORUM AS A FORMER TRIBUNE EMPLOYEE. THE
DEBASEMENT THAT THEY ARE
TALKING ABOUT WAS AN ARTICLE, AND IT WAS ONE FUNNY,
NONSENSICAL THING THAT THEY DID. FOR SOME REASON PROSECUTORS ARE
GOING AFTER MATTHEW KEYS IN THE MOST AGGRESSIVE WAY POSSIBLE.
LET ME SHOW YOU EXACTLY WHAT THEY CHANGED. IT WAS ONE
ARTICLE, GRAPHIC NUMBER SEVENTEEN SHOWS WHAT THEY DID.
IT SAYS “PRESSURE BUILDS IN THE HOUSE TO ELECT CHIPPY 1337.
HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADER STENY HOYER SEES VERY GOOD THINGS IN
THE DEAL CUT WHICH WILL SEE UBER SKID CHIPPY 1337 TAKE HIS
RIGHTFUL PLACE AS HEAD OF THE SENATE, RELUCTANT HOUSE
DEMOCRATS TOLD TO SUCK IT UP.” ANYONE READING THAT KNOWS THERE
IS SOMETHING UP, AND IT DID NOT TAKE LONG FOR THE LA TIMES TO CATCH ON AND NOTICED THE ERROR.
THE PROSECUTORS ARE CLAIMING THAT IT COST TO THE LA TIMES
$5000 TO FIX THAT MISTAKE, WHICH IS BS. AND NOW THIS JOURNALIST IS
FACING TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN PRISON. THE REASON WHY THEY PICKED
THAT $5000 NUMBER — WHICH IS INSANE, YOU JUST FIX THE
SENTENCE, IT TAKES ABOUT HALF A MINUTE AND YOU ARE DONE — BUT IT
IS THAT $5000 IS THE MINIMUM IN ORDER FOR THEM TO PRESS THESE
KINDS OF CHARGES AGAINST HIM. THAT IS WHY THEY PICKED THAT NUMBER. ON THE ONE HAND, THERE
IS NO QUESTION ñ ñ THERE WAS A QUESTION, THERE WAS A TRIAL
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD GIVEN THEM THE LOGIN INFO ñ ñ
AND THE JURY CONVICTED HIM. BUT THE JURY DOES NOT KNOW THE TIME
THAT HE’S FACING. THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. YOU SEE GUILTY,
AND THEN THE SENTENCING. SO, A LOT OF TIMES WHAT HAPPENS IN
THESE CASES THEY SAY, HE’S GUILTY, AND THEN THE JUDGE SAYS
WE HAD TO GIVE HIM TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, AND THE JURY GOES,
WHAT? WE THOUGHT SLAP ON THE WRIST, THEY JUST CHANGED
THE
SENTENCE. CHIPPY, WHO CARES? ANY LA TIMES READER WOULD KNOW
IT’S FAKE. THAT IS THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM. WHAT THEY
ARE TRYING TO DO IS THEY ARE TRYING TO SEND A MESSAGE. DON’T
MESS AROUND WITH ANYBODY LIKE THIS, BECAUSE WE WILL COME AFTER YOU AND LAY DOWN THE LAW.
BUT IT VIOLATES THE BALANCE OF REASON, AND TURNS US AGAINST THE PROSECUTION. I HAVE A WEBSITE,
SO I HEAR YOU ON THAT. IF YOU PROVE THAT HE BROKE THE LAW, I’M
WITH YOU ON THAT. IF YOU SAY HE DESERVES TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, YOU
LOST ME. THAT’S MENTAL, DON’T DO THAT. IT’S NOT A CONSPIRACY,
IT’S THE NATURE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT, FIGHT AGAINST
ANYTHING THAT THREATENS THE ESTABLISHMENT WITH 100 PERCENT
FERVOR. THROW THE BOOK AT HIM, PUT HIM
IN JAIL FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS. ANONYMOUS. THIS IS SO CRAZY. WE HAVE
RAPISTS IN THE COUNTRY THAT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF RAPE AND THEY
ARE NOT FACING THIS MUCH TIME IN PRISON. HERE IS THE THING, HE
IS UNLIKELY TO GET TWENTY-FIVE YEARS. SO KEEP THAT IN MIND,
BUT I DON’T EVEN THINK HE SHOULD SERVE ONE YEAR IN PRISON FOR
THIS. SHOULD THERE BE SOME SORT OF CONSEQUENCE? ABSOLUTELY.
FIRST OF ALL, HIS REPUTATION IS RUINED. NO ONE IS GOING TO HIRE
HIM. THERE IS NO WAY HE IS GOING TO WORK AS A JOURNALIST
ANYMORE, ANYWAY. BUT YOU ARE RIGHT, A POSSIBLE SENTENCE LIKE
THAT TURNS HIM INTO THE GOOD GUY, OR AT LEAST THE GUY YOU
WANT TO DEFEND. WHY ARE THEY PUTTING PEOPLE IN THAT KIND OF
POSITION? DID HE POSES SOME SORT OF A
THREAT TO SOCIETY? THAT IS THE COUNTRY WE LIVE IN. ANYTHING YOU DO, REGARDLESS OF
HOW NONVIOLENT IT IS, SOMEHOW WARRANTS A TWENTY-FIVE
YEAR SENTENCE. YOUíRE A BANKER THAT CAUSES A
GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE, YOU ARE TOO BIG TO PUT IN JAIL, YOU
WILL GET NOTHING AT ALL. IF YOU CHANGE A SENTENCE ON AN LA TIMES
WEBSITE, YOU WILL GET TWENTY-FIVE YEARS. MAYBE THIS
GUY MADE A MISTAKE, HE WAS FRUSTRATED WITH THE REPORTING
AND HE WANTED TO DO BETTER THAN MAINSTREAM JOURNALISM. MAYBE HE WILL HAVE HIS
MOMENT OF REDEMPTION. I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE
KID SO I DON’T KNOW ABOUT THAT. ALL I KNOW IS, EVERYBODY AGREES,
ANYONE WHO ISN’T A PART OF THE ESTABLISHMENT, TWENTY-FIVE
YEARS, EVEN FACING THAT TYPE OF A SENTENCE IS MENTAL.

Author:

100 thoughts on “Journalist Faces Decades In Prison For “Defacing” Newspaper Site”

  • The Illuminati says:

    You need to watch your mouth @ 4:50 Cenk, when you start talking shit about bankers. We don't like your smart ass remarks or your tone of voice. Keep in mind, you're just one "tragic car crash" away from being yesterday's news. Remember who you work for.

  • BrUcE //ayNE GaRrEtt jR says:

    The Hacker wars on netflix can easily show that gov and especially feds cannot keep getting exposed and embarrassed. Mostly because it shows the flaws and punctures the scare bubble thats been put up between us and the rich; showing America's leaders arent actually scary their just corrupt and have the feds and police paid off.

  • That poor pasty white kid is gonna be ass raped in prison. Kind of pity him…
    Anonymous better do something to help him out..

  • Lesson to be learned: If you are gonna fight the big guns, you better tread carefully.

    That's what troll accounts are for. Stupid man, should never have revealed his identity…

  • Stephen InGermany says:

    This will make juries start finding people not guilty in future because they will be worried about people getting stupid sentences like this if convicted

  • SomethingRedundant says:

    "according to Gawker" then it should be dismissed. As Sargon of Akkad says, they are the cancer of the innernet

  • As a jurist they should have asked what the sentence will be if found guilty. If the judge says it is not the juries concern what the sentence will be but only guilt or innocence, then send the judge a message with a not guilty verdict. As you can see the sentence does not equal the crime.. To me this falls under cruel and unusual punishment. .

  • Flashing in and out of Reality says:

    This is a crazy story the more I think about it, it solidifies the media's relationship with public officials and how they are ALL some lying bullies at the end of the day.

  • Personally I think anonymous walk a fine line. I think the second they overstep is when they will loose support. Honestly I know bugger all about them but from what I know they seem to try and do reasonable things but it can backfire. This guy I doubt will get much support because at the end of the day hackers don't have a great reputation.

  • CENK! Got to bed, dude. Get better. TYT has run without you before. They can do it again until you get over this cold. Love, Mom.

  • still its criminal hacking and should be punished as much and $5,000 its the minimal cost to repair because then you have to have an investigation and then issue a massive apology then the company has to hope they didn't loose too many readers.

  • What a dumb bastard; Anonymous isn't allowed to hack whatever they want, only the government is!
    Make sure to invent an alternate chain of evidence after you've gained secret information by spying on everyone, so you can pretend to be legally charging people with crimes while yourself using illegal methods lol!

  • This is another example of federal prosecutors behaving as extremist oppressors, and here they are seeking sentences more appropriate to a murder conviction, than that of a simple case of hacking.

    This harkens back to the Aaron Schwartz case in Massachusetts in 2011. In that instance, MIT police arrested Mr. Schwartz for downloading and posting to the internet documents (which Harvard had generated from federal funding, then had the greed and arrogance to charge anyone who wanted a copy of these works $5 a page). Aaron committed suicide after the prosecutors (lead by by the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, Carmen Ortiz) sought to have his punishment be a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution, and supervised release (and understand, at 27 years of age AND 35 years in prison, that "supervised release" would be for a 62 year old Aaron in the year 2047).

    If we're going to continue to think of ourselves as a humane and humanistic society, we have GOT to put serious and forceful restraints of out-of-control prosecutors like the ones in this and the Aaron Schwartz case. And we need to do so soon.

  • HEΛRTS OF SPΛCE says:

    Why would world famous hackers need someone to provide login credentials?!? Seems more like a couple of script kiddies messing around…

  • Well Merchants started the American revolution, merchants wrote the Constitution of the US. The result being, when you replace the  word people where it appears in the Gettysburg address with merchant  you get a sense of the true nature of government in the USA.

  • Funny, you US citizens seem to forget that since the copyright laws were introduced, and other 'hacking' laws were changed, you now have harsher punishments for hacking than for murder. I don't remember the particular story but, about eight or ten years ago there was an individual convicted of 'defacing' a company website and because the company claimed to have lost money as a result, the individual was given a longer sentence than if he'd murdered the owner of said company.

    United States priorities; Money is more important than people.

  • He's seriously (potentially) facing 25 years for a minor case of accessory to trolling? Something about all this seems very off to me… in reality I doubt he'll get anywhere close to that long, but still even 3-5 years is totally insane for what he did, which at the end of the day was next to nothing. Cenk touched on it, but this is all to make a very public example out of him for any other employees of the propaganda cartel to think twice before colluding with Anonymous. If he had done this himself they might not have even fired him; it certainly wouldn't have been national, headline-grabbing news. But since a hacking organization was involved, and the most publicly well-known organization at that, then of course he's going to get his 15 minutes and all of the sudden finds himself unemployed with no hopes of getting another job in that field anywhere, facing trumped up charges from a federal prosecutor, dealing with all kinds of misguided rhetoric from the main stream media and hate from people who don't even know him, all because his name is now synonymous with the Anonymous organization.

  • So I could become a police officer and shoot a black guy in the back and I could get off free but if I give the login credentials of a news site to trolls I could be locked up for two and a half decades

  • US has the most vicious criminal justice system in the developed world. In Norway, killer of 23 kids got 20 years of jail. In the US, you get 10+ years for selling a bag of marijuana.

  • A rare FAIL for TYT. You guys constantly preach to others to "calm down" and "wait for the facts", yet you are in an uproar because this guy "might" get 25 years. He hasn't been sentenced yet. So, calm down and wait until the sentencing hearing… then comment. This video is pointless.

  • Appreciate the overall sentiment of this video, but there's way too many factual inaccuracies mixed in with some assumptions about what is true. Wish someone had reached out to me before putting this segment together. It's far worse than what's described here.

  • You can't measure a crime and betrayal by how successful it was. He intended to destroy the company who had put him in a position of trust. Decades in prison is not a solution thought, just another problem.

  • The LA times needs to take a lead on this and speak out against this. So do their readers. I do read the LA Times now and again but will be boycotting it henceforth. I'm not interested in reading news from a fascist organisation.

  • OK so a few questions here…

    Did members of anonymous ask for this information? OR did he provide it out of his own volition? And then encouraged them to do so for his own personal reasons?
    OR was it anonymous idea in the first place?
    Did he know the members of anonymous personally, as in know who they are (without their masks on)? If he did then they would be in as much trouble as he is.
    DID the members of anonymous deface the newspapers website? If they did then they are an accomplice should they not also be facing some kind of penalty? That is of course assuming you know their true identities.

    Also its not clear why anonymous would want specific access to this newspaper website.

  • What the laws are about is stopping stealing, damage to files, misleading the public or revealing data. None of those things happened. This is the most minor instance of the violation.

  • Suzanne Stoffel says:

    By 2012 estimates, 1 inmate costs $31,286 per year (Vera Institute of Justice). So… 31,286 X 25 = $782,150 that we will be paying to keep Matthew Keys locked up, when he could [obviously] be a productive member of society. Let's assess the value with inflation over the 25 year period … N=25, Interest (inflation rate) = .2, Payment = 31,286 (input onto a financial calculator). Results are underestimated because of out sh*t economy… Still at $801,212.62 that we pay in taxes to keep a nonviolent person, who committed a funny crime that may have cost LA Times up to .00624% of the penalty to us, locked away.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *