undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdmix11y ago0 comments

I never followed the case, could someone clarify how he was an accessory after the fact?

Did they explain how he misled Stratfor? Were they investigating their own breach and contacted him somehow? Or did he hide evidence?

It'd be great to have clarity on his wrongdoing related to the hacking. The parts about threats and hiding evidence seem tertiary to peoples defense of him. Since the major crime that he became famous for was the hacking by anonymous.

0 comments

tptacek11y ago

According to Kim Zetter:

The first charge is a new one and relates to assistance Brown allegedly gave the person who hacked Stratfor “in order to hinder and prevent [his] apprehension, trial and punishment.”

According to the government Brown worked to create confusion about the hacker’s identity “in a manner that diverted attention away from the hacker,” which included communicating with Stratfor after the hack in a way that authorities say drew attention away from the hacker. The hacker is not named, and it’s not clear if it’s convicted Stratfor intruder Jeremy Hammond, or an earlier hacker who’s known to have penetrated the company first.

dmixOP11y ago

Thanks. Seems like during sentencing this was the key point related to accessory:

> Loss amount of more then $400,000 but less than $1M

This was worth +14 points which was higher than any other single guideline - including threatening an FBI agent.

I guess the lesson here is that if the crime at hand involved any significant amount of money then even if your role was minor (and after the fact) you can still get serious punishment.

tptacek11y ago

Yes. This is a real problem with the federal sentencing guidelines.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

tptacek11y ago

According to Kim Zetter:

The first charge is a new one and relates to assistance Brown allegedly gave the person who hacked Stratfor “in order to hinder and prevent [his] apprehension, trial and punishment.”

dmixOP11y ago

Thanks. Seems like during sentencing this was the key point related to accessory:

> Loss amount of more then $400,000 but less than $1M

This was worth +14 points which was higher than any other single guideline - including threatening an FBI agent.

I guess the lesson here is that if the crime at hand involved any significant amount of money then even if your role was minor (and after the fact) you can still get serious punishment.

tptacek11y ago

Yes. This is a real problem with the federal sentencing guidelines.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse