Sophos Cloud Optix
Barrett Brown, a journalist with links to the Anonymous hacking collective, has been sentenced to over five years in jail for his role in the hacking of private US intelligence firm Strategic Forecasting Inc. (Stratfor).
Brown originally faced a possible 100 years behind bars until he took a deal in March 2014 that saw him plead guilty to charges of obstruction of justice, being an ‘accessory after the fact’ and making threats to an FBI agent.
The ‘obstruction of justice’ charge related to a March 2012 raid on the house he shared with his mother during which Brown hid a laptop, supposedly to protect his sources.
The authorities then claimed he was an ‘accessory after the fact’ because he helped cause confusion after the Stratfor hack “in a manner that diverted attention away from the hacker” – the hacker being Jeremy Hammond, who himself was sentenced to ten years in prison for his role in the hack, and who was caught partly because of his use of a poor password.
The threats made to FBI agent Robert Smith came via a trio of videos Brown uploaded to YouTube in September 2012.
Brown, who is said to have been at one time an unofficial spokesman for Anonymous, originally faced pre-deal charges including identity theft and possession of stolen credit card data. He had also controversially been accused of posting a hyperlink which pointed towards data stolen from Stratfor.
That charge was later dropped.
In his statement to the court, Brown was defiant over the link charge, saying:
The government exposed me to decades of prison time for copying and pasting a link to a publicly available file that other journalists were also linking to without being prosecuted.
He also denied ever being a mouthpiece for Anonymous, but did say that he once falsely claimed he was in order to acquire the trust of defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton.
In his statement Brown expressed some regret over his actions, especially in regard to the videos he published, but also implored the judge to apply careful consideration to the prosecution’s conduct and the level of sentencing his crimes deserved:
Your Honor, I am asking you to give me a time-served sentence of thirty months today because to do otherwise will have the effect of rewarding this sort of reckless conduct on the part of the government. I am also asking for that particular sentence because, as my lawyer Marlo Cadeddu, an acknowledged expert on the guidelines, has pointed out, that’s what the actual facts of the case would seem to warrant. And the public, to the extent that it has made its voice heard through letters and donations and even op-eds in major newspapers, also believes that the circumstances of this case warrant that I be released today. I would even argue that the government itself believes that the facts warrant my release today, because look at all the lies they decided they would have to tell to keep me in prison.
Unfortunately for Brown, the judge did not concur and instead sentenced him to 63 months in jail. Taking the 28 months already served into account, Brown will still have another 2 years, 11 months in jail, though he will be eligible for parole in one year.
Brown was also ordered to pay restitution of $890,000 – the bulk of which will be passed to Stratfor.
Image of Barrett Brown by Karen Lancaster via Wikimedia Commons
So, this is another case of an excessive jail term for someone we’re mad at and not someone who presents and extreme danger to society. We keep filling prison with non-violent people and cutting violent criminals loose.
This dope should have been cut loose with time served, electronic monitoring, and no use of a computer, smart phone, or other internet connected device.
Agreed. This journalist hid a laptop to protect his sources. In the US, it is an established first amendment right that Journalists do not have to reveal their sources and law enforcement cannot compel them to do so. If this journalist had been from the New York times there would have been an outcry. Instead he gets several years in Jail, just because he was investigating computer hackers rather than corrupt politicians.
It is incorrect that journalists do not have to reveal their sources (based on the US Constitution). In a few states, that’s the law, but plenty of journalists have spent time in jail for refusing to reveal their sources.
If the judge says reveal the source, then one risks contempt of court charges if the journalist does not reveal the source.
However, it has never reached the Supreme Court. Who knows what might happen there?
If we were to prosecute everyone who has passed along URLs to files of data breach material, we wouldn’t have enough jail space to hold them.
The short period of time that he will have spent in jail pales in comparison to the losses that victims of these (hacker) people experience.
He made a statement to Booz Hamilton saying he was the mouthpiece for Anonymous. Now he says he lied to get their confidence. I imagine to hire him so he could do more work like Snowden. He admitted guilt, and later admitted he was a liar. He also tried to hide a laptop when the house was being searched. That is obstruction of justice, no matter what was on it. Maybe you thing lying and hiding evidence is expressing your first amendment rights???
“Maybe you thing lying and hiding evidence is expressing your first amendment rights???”
You’re displaying a common ignorance here – by definition nothing to be unduly ashamed of, though!
Those very activities are indeed protected – depending on the context.
In other words, such actions can’t be judged in a contextual vacuum, and those unable to discern this do auto-disqualify themselves from the debate at its outset.
Given your strong feelings on this subject, have you given similar time & thought to the context, where two FBI informants apparently perpetrated the Stratfor breach – at the behest of the FBI?
This sentence is as unsurprising as it is ineffectual for either Retribution OR Rehabilition – the two primary, conflicting pillars of any justice system.
I agree with Andy above re: excessive sentence given the particulars of the case.
Mr. Munson needs to sharpen his pencil a little, however – Brown’s remaining sentence – 63 months minus 28 months leaves 35 months – is 2 years and 11 months by my calculation. Sounds a little less onerous doesn’t it ?
But his sentence is 63 months, minus nothing. The 28 months he is getting “let off” is time he has already spent locked up, albeit that he was remanded in custody pending trial, not held as a convicted prisoner.
“…the judge … instead sentenced him to 63 months in jail. Taking the 28 months already served into account, Brown will still have another 3 years, 10 months in jail …”
I was only quibbling over the math in the above sentence, the ending of which should have read “… Brown will still have another 2 years, 11 months in jail …”
And yes, the overall sentence of 63 months does seem onerous.
Er, yes. I see now 🙂 Sorry about that. Fixed…ta!
I genuinely want to understand why the prevailing opinion holds that a 63 month sentence is excessive. First, from my perspective many millions of dollars have been lost to “hackers” and those complicit with their activities.Many more millions have been spent buttressing against their attacks, and many millions more spent hunting them down and prosecuting them for their crimes. Second, consider how hackers have affected our sense of safety when conducting financial transactions. For example, I found a product that I wanted to buy from Target, but I was not comfortable making the purchase with my credit card and chose to find the product elsewhere. Third, if a 63 month sentence restricting his freedom seems excessive for this Barrett Brown, what about those who have suffered through the seemingly unending nightmare of identity theft directly attributable to hacking activities? I don’t think that taking away a hackers toys is equal to the intangible and tangible loss of freedoms that the victims experience. I understand that you all have a different sense of what justice is, but when you think a little more deeply you have to come to the realization that these are not a “slap on the wrist” crimes.
Can we stop calling him a “journalist?” His actions are nothing a bona fide member of the press would attempt. A good freelancer, or reporter for a reputable publication is not going to go to misrepresent his or herself to gain credibility. You never ally yourself with an organisation. The idea is to remain unaffiliated, unbiased, and unimpeachable with your preservation of facts. That’s what allows people to believe what you report.
No one really care enough to do anything about it other than complain online.