American Government Will Drop Key Charges against Activist JournalistAdded: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Current Events
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2013, www.extratorrent.cc
The American authorities have moved to drop key charges against the activist-journalist Barrett Brown. The charges include the most controversial count that Brown transferred stolen property by republishing a hyperlink to a site containing hacked content.
US prosecutors found themselves under widespread criticism for seeking to prosecute Barrett Brown for the posting of a hyperlink. Lots of public, including lawyers, publishers and online freedom campaigners had warned the government that this move could set a precedent that would have put a chill on the culture of linking across the Internet.
The prosecutors lodged in a court a motion to dismiss 11 of the 17 counts against Barrett. They all related to the hack of the site of private intelligence company Stratfor three years ago by Anonymous.
Barrett Brown, 32, copied a hyperlink from one of the chat rooms linking to a site containing some of the hacked email addresses and credit card details stolen from the Stratfor site. Brown also republished the link on his own Internet chat room, Project PM.
The decision to drop counts one and three to 12 in the indictment relating to the Stratfor hack was made the next day after Brown’s lawyers filed a legal memorandum calling for those counts to be dropped. They argued that the prosecution violated the First Amendment right to free speech, as reposting a link doesn’t itself transfer content from one location to another. Perhaps, the government lawyers decided instead to focus on the other charges still facing Barrett.
Brown, who was writing for the UK’s Guardian and other publications before his arrest in September 2012, is still accused of count two in this indictment – that he committed access device fraud relating to the credit card details stolen by Anonymous. In addition, Brown faces 2 separate indictments, one for obstruction of justice by trying to hide laptops, and the other for making threats against an FBI officer and disclosing data about an FBI agent and his family. Overall, Barrett still faces 70 years in jail, though another 35 years have been removed through the dismissed counts. His attorney appraised the government’s decision to drop the charges.
Meanwhile, the prosecution’s case that by publishing the hyperlink Barrett had transferred stolen property had sparked widespread alarm among First Amendment lawyers, campaigners, news outfits and other publishers who were afraid it would send a chill across the web. They admit that if Brown is held criminally liable for linking to a site, the implications are profound.
Posted by: Date:
Tuesday, March 18th, 2014
|posted by (2014-03-18 13:03:31)|
|35 years for re-posting a link is rather extreme by anyone's standards you would have to be a homicidal lunatic like Fred west or Peter sutcliff to get such a sentence in the UK and looking at him he is`nt one of the Krays.|
Reposting a link from any site should not carry the same sentencing as multiple homicide only Nudnik American legal system gives such stupid sentences accounting for the reason 1 in 10 Americans are in Jail at the tax payers expense.
|Based on the information above, what little there is to go on, I have to agree that it was right to charge him. Now, depending what the statute language is charging him with, Im refraining from making any broader statement than that.|
Regardless of the supposed 'harmlessness' or the 'Im-just-doing-what-he-is-doing' or w/e arguements you want to propose, posting a link to criminal activity and giving a more widespread access to the supposed stolen information is stupid in itself.
Posting a link, without a clear edge of 'Plausible Deniability' to partaking of the activity itself, is definitely a cause to be held liable to Laws of the land.
Example: Posting a link to a video,software,application,etc can be denied under the guise of linking for 'educational', 'research' or 'testing' purposes, etc..
Linking to child porn, stolen information -that harms a person,business,or the Public - cannot be used under the excuses above. There are limits to everything- including Free Speech, because, as such, Free Speech is a Man-made idea it is not a Universal Law or Right - it sways with Public Opinion and those who hold the chains of Power over the People.
This is one case, for now until more information can be brought to light, that I will tentatively agree with the article.
|posted by (2014-03-18 22:27:04)|
|@ 3 I agree.|
What this pos linked to was stolen credit card info and who knows what else.
The scary thing is he looks like Piers Morgan's son..
|posted by (2014-03-18 22:46:20)|
|Some of you guys really should be thanking the writers of the constitution. you have no idea what your guys are talking about. not one iota. especially poster 3 and 4.|
The US Constitution is not a Willy Wonka 'Golden Ticket' to do whatever you like,whenever you like. The Constitution is based on ideals,principles and practices of Men - not Gods - and as such, is fallible to the interpretations of Men. You cannot interpret the Constitution as being some Holy or Divine Revelation like some sort of tablet from Moses to the Jews.
Free Speech has limits - let's use a time worn example here: You cant go into a crowded movie theater and yell 'Fire!' without cause to do so.If there is no fire or danger to those inside, you will be charged with a criminal act.
His linking the actual link to these stolen cards ,under the guise of being, to quote the article - an 'activist-journalist', is pure BS. In a simple analogy, he took the cookie jar off the top shelf - where at least it had only limited exposure -,opened it and let anyone grab what they wanted.
Let's put another perspective on this,switch it up and use the old 'what if it was you?' argument....your credit card numbers, your bank accounts, your private email addresses,etc..
Bet you wouldnt like it very much,would you? People love to carry the torch of Righteousness - until it burns them. Have a good night.
|posted by (2014-03-19 07:48:52)|
|editor don't had attorney for publish & how be rebel if U don't knowledge it at time!|
|posted by (2014-03-19 18:46:32)|
|Why are you talking about yelling fire in a theatre? Is that what happened here? No. What happened here was a link was posted. As for the rest of your nonsense: sophomoric.|
I tried to converse with you on a somewhat equal level - sh*t, I even went so far as to simplify the situation by giving easy analogies,but you obviously did not comprehend the posts I made. It's like you have the attention span/memory of a goldfish - according to research,that's about 3 seconds.
I pity you, truly - that you cannot discuss nor comprehend a different side to a discussion shows your lack of education - and this 'Im-right-and-your-wrong' attitude,especially with the clear indication that you can't understand what you read, is quite amusing.
Who said he yelled fire? I did not, here's my quote ( since it might be beyond your capabilities to scroll up and reread the post):
"Free Speech has limits - let's use a time worn example here: You cant go into a crowded movie theater and yell 'Fire!' without cause to do so.If there is no fire or danger to those inside, you will be charged with a criminal act."
See where I put the phrase 'let's use a time worn example' - meaning, I used that phrase as a comparison of behavior - and also as Free Speech does NOT apply to dangerous or criminal situations - to what the guy did as an ANALOGY.
Might want to look up that word: ANALOGY.
(Also, on a side note, Id smack myself a few times, if I was you, for failing to get educated properly - as it's obvious your parents didn't care.)
LOLZ, I was thinking the same thing,but couldn't bring myself to post on that ebonics babble.
|@10 the premise that there is some guilt in posting of stolen details,whether he personally profited from the misuse of said data was or is proven has to be seen and is no doubt an associated charge, but what is alarming is that in perhaps his own naiveté he foolishly posted something he believed to be already rendered useless or played out by its original site at which time the details may have been misused.|
He has some culpability without question but 35 years worth for a few details is not the same as him doing the Brinks Mat bullion heist for christsake for which the perpetrators were sentenced to 25 years a vast difference between what was one of the crimes of the century and a little snooping on those who are watching the regularity with which we take a dump they are that far up our cyberspace.
Agreed. The sentence he is facing is ridiculous - but,lets see what is decided on his motivations and explanation of the charges is. It just might be the right thing to do if he is found to have personal or nefarious intentions for doing what he did.
Since we don't always have all the information at once, I will direct you to my first post on this article. I 'tentatively' agree with the article and base my first impressions and written reviews of the article as such.
This kind of thing seems to fall into the same category as the kid here: http://news.techeye.net/business/aussie-teen-hacker-arrested-for-helping-government.
Now, while the article we are discussing falls under US law, it looks like the same outcome.
BUT, I cant agree with his presumed innocence based on his 'not knowing if the information was still valid.' That's a pretty shady and vague argument,IMO.
While you see it as naivete, I see it (for now) as trying for his 15 mins of fame by putting this out and then claiming he is an 'activist' (to use the articles title) and wanted to make it public.
We dont know yet if he will claim whether he tried contacting the authorities or the security company itself to give them some warning.
For now, its up in the air.
|posted by (2014-03-20 05:49:09)|
Stop trying to curate some veneer of intelligence. It's transparent in your inability to 1) state a valid argument and 2) in your convoluted and clumsy exhibition of vocabulary. You should have learned this on sesame street. They would have a segment where they would present 3 items, and then ask, "which one of these doesn't belong?" Clearly you flunked that. Analogies are supposed to represent things that are similar. You're on the right track that an analogy would help you, just not that one. By going on to claim you never said he yelled fire defeats the purpose of using an analogy, even one as inapplicable as yelling fire. Try responding simply and you'll find that you will make less mistakes.
|posted by (2014-03-20 07:19:37)|
|I'd also like to know why you think the particular charges were dropped? I suppose out of the goodness of the prosecution's heart.|
LOLZ...Oh,wow, this is too much...ahhahahaahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Lets get to it then,lol ...1) using the word 'curate' in that context in that sentence is fookin hilarious...just that in itself shows you are nothing but an uneducated person. You shoulda Googled 'curate' before trying to do some word magic in order to learn it's meaning....or did YOU just get done watching Sesame Street and it was the word of the day?
Next time, watch Reading Rainbow,much more educational....
2)If you cant see the similarities between the EXAMPLE I gave and the real situation as I mention it,then you're definitely not capable of comprehensive or abstract thought.
3) Stop smoking that crack you on. Where you see in any post that i mention anything about charges being dropped leads me to believe that you have some other serious issues with reality and how you process information.
4) I consider you a 'lost cause' and will not continue to deviate on this conversation path with you - it is taking away from real thought on this article over some idiotic nonsense. Try removing your head out from your butt - it'll relieve the pressure off that single, damaged brain cell that allows you to function.
Thats my last reply to you,so feel free to get the last word in if it makes you feel better about yourself.
|posted by (2014-03-20 09:54:10)|
|Carjacker - Even when documented proof or using true logical reasoning towards FellAway won't work for a very simple reason. Some or either they are just plain stupid and spent most of their child and early adult life play Xbox; or did go to "school" have been brainwashed by the propaganda spouting "teachers" so they are incapable of even thinking for themselves and Big Daddy " Government" will provide for their entitlement demanding attitude.|
The other really more disturbing is they are actually highly educated, smart, Progressive Liberals who is power hungry driven by having the attitude screw number two before number two screws number one. Who truly believes you and I are incapable of running our own lives and they will do it for us by force..
Yet in FellAway's case I am inclined to believe the former.
|posted by (2014-03-20 11:57:24)|
|You can avoid the question all you want, but if you think doing so will fool anyone into thinking you've answered it you are mistaken. The same goes for your neolithic digress. And that of your friend. At the very least, I hope that out of all this you do learn what is and what is not an appropriate analogy, and that on your next attempt at discourse, you will refrain from the kinds of lapses that you have displayed thus far.|
|posted by (2014-03-21 06:20:12)|
|@... robots and moredadors even check illegal content with hyperlinks using any editors software for publish;in short,it not exist control and fbi list for robots to stop edit & publisher illegal thinks onl.|
if articles are in any Hosting categories for publish and OS'S banned illegal content? 4 kdz.
|@Carjacker : I dont agree with your analogy. Its more like, going into a theater, sitting down. Then Yelling the ending at the top of your lungs while saying 'You were ripped off to watch it in the first place'|
This is just like the situation with Snowden, if ANY information is stolen, and is later revealed by HERSAY, it should be dismissable in court.
A hyperlink is no different than a handwritten note, telling a person to look 'at the last brick on "the monument", closest to the ground, In London.' - would that be a punishable crime?
Besides, if information like this is publicly available, again, it becomes dismissible to begin with. If the person did not witness the crime, but has knowledge of it and Documents evidence of it, due to public availability. It is Called Journalism.
Otherwise, i reference (http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/08/justice/massachusetts-hernandez-shooting-documents/index.html) linking to (http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/04/justice/massachusetts-hernandez-search/index.html) releasing details to the public of evidence found.
If i was walking through a metro, and seen a picture of a dead body and a picture of a gun seperately, next to each other. then proceeded to blog about it, telling people where it is. - Only later to find out the body was from a crime scene and the gun matched the description. How would you judge such information. - On top of that, at the time of sharing such information, could you prove without a reason of a doubt, the accuracy of the information. Providing its not a hoax?
What this case really is about, is simply this. If he is prosecuted for hyperlinking to sensitive material. ALL Sites doing so, can therefor be prosecuted under the same determination. As providing such information, is automatically a criminal offense.
Most Popular Stories