For those catching up, I made a timeline of the case: http://newslines.org/matthew-keys/
This is a great timeline. Thank you. It puts a lot of things into context.
Former Reuters Journalist Matthew Keys Sentenced to Two Years for Hacking
41–50 of 67 posts
Re: Former Reuters Journalist Matthew Keys Sentenced to Two Years for Hacking
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Despite the big scary words [seriously, "exfiltrating" and "exhorting" in a single sentence; whom are we trying to convince?], it shouldn't be a crime. No fraud took place here. No personal or business data was stolen. No one was hurt. The damage was the online equivalent of "Kilroy was here" on a bathroom wall. The "victim" in the case is a giant media conglomerate responsible for the silencing of thousands of indep…
Very little of this is responsive to what I wrote earlier. I think the problem here is that you're unconsciously building a whole lot of hindsight into your analysis. You know now that very little damage was done to Trib Corp (or whoever). But at the time, that was not known . It took a very expensive investigation to resolve those questions. The cost of that investigation should be borne by the people whose actions…
Responsive? I thought we were talking about the law. You asked, incredulously, if I thought a certain set of actions should be legal. I told you why I think they should. In short, the harms of inconsistently-enforced inherently-arbitrary only-for-bigcos laws such as these exceed those of not having such laws.
I stipulated at the very top of the thread that the investigation was surely very expensive. Most citizens wish these giant conglomerates, whether in media or banking or whatever, were smaller. We're not mollified when the costs of their giant size are passed along to the taxpayer and average citizen.
Actual crimes with actual harms to actual victims should still be crimes, whether they involve computers or not.
Re: Former Reuters Journalist Matthew Keys Sentenced to Two Years for Hacking
#43I've read like 20 stories and I still can't figure out what Keys did that is actually illegal. He (or someone else) posted the login credentials to the Tribune's CMS, and then someone used those credentials to login and deface the site? Or am I missing something? That's like saying you can get in trouble for giving someone a key to your old apartment, and then they go use it to unlock the door and do whatever they fe…
What you describe in both cases is illegal.
Re: Former Reuters Journalist Matthew Keys Sentenced to Two Years for Hacking
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you be more specific about the murky situation we're talking about here? I moved offices from Oak Park back into Chicago a few months back. The landlord never collected the key. My old office was rented out (I can see from the window). Can I go look around inside it?
It's not that you have the right to go back. Rather, by failing to change the locks they might have some liability if you did go back. If a lessor or landlord in Illinois does not change or rekey the unit's lock before the day the new tenant or lessee takes possession, and a THEFT occurs at that dwelling unit that is attributable to the lessor's failure to change or rekey the lock, the landlord is liable for any dama…
No, that's actually not true of commercial leases in Chicago. It's true of residential leases because residential landlords have a whole bunch of very specific issues about key changes.
But stipulate that it was true. What bearing does that have on this case? If I go into that office and steal $5000 worth of computer equipment, am I not liable for felony grand theft because the landlord has civil liability to the tenant?
Re: Former Reuters Journalist Matthew Keys Sentenced to Two Years for Hacking
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very little of this is responsive to what I wrote earlier. I think the problem here is that you're unconsciously building a whole lot of hindsight into your analysis. You know now that very little damage was done to Trib Corp (or whoever). But at the time, that was not known . It took a very expensive investigation to resolve those questions. The cost of that investigation should be borne by the people whose actions…
Responsive? I thought we were talking about the law . You asked, incredulously, if I thought a certain set of actions should be legal. I told you why I think they should. In short, the harms of inconsistently-enforced inherently-arbitrary only-for-bigcos laws such as these exceed those of not having such laws. I stipulated at the very top of the thread that the investigation was surely very expensive. Most citizens w…
No, investigations for very small tech companies also cost far more than $20,000. Source: I've been a party to those, too.
Even if you adopt the position that we should have laws that treats victims differently depending on how big their companies are, that wouldn't have much bearing on this case.
Re: Former Reuters Journalist Matthew Keys Sentenced to Two Years for Hacking
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that you have the right to go back. Rather, by failing to change the locks they might have some liability if you did go back. If a lessor or landlord in Illinois does not change or rekey the unit's lock before the day the new tenant or lessee takes possession, and a THEFT occurs at that dwelling unit that is attributable to the lessor's failure to change or rekey the lock, the landlord is liable for any dama…
No, that's actually not true of commercial leases in Chicago. It's true of residential leases because residential landlords have a whole bunch of very specific issues about key changes. But stipulate that it was true. What bearing does that have on this case? If I go into that office and steal $5000 worth of computer equipment, am I not liable for felony grand theft because the landlord has civil liability to the ten…
Liability can be shared and a tenant may greatly prefer going after an ex. landlord vs. some random person.
Granted, this does not apply in your case, but Chicago does have mixed use Residential/Commercial leases which is covered.
Now suppose a tenant goes back to retrieve their property the day after there lease ends. Which under some situations they are allowed to do. Key works, the enter building...
IANAL, but would suggest this is a situation the owner would like to avoid.
Re: Former Reuters Journalist Matthew Keys Sentenced to Two Years for Hacking
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's actually not true of commercial leases in Chicago. It's true of residential leases because residential landlords have a whole bunch of very specific issues about key changes. But stipulate that it was true. What bearing does that have on this case? If I go into that office and steal $5000 worth of computer equipment, am I not liable for felony grand theft because the landlord has civil liability to the ten…
Liability can be shared and a tenant may greatly prefer going after an ex. landlord vs. some random person. Granted, this does not apply in your case, but Chicago does have mixed use Residential/Commercial leases which is covered. Now suppose a tenant goes back to retrieve their property the day after there lease ends. Which under some situations they are allowed to do. Key works, the enter building... IANAL, but wou…
Your concern here is over moral hazard. You're saying, the law makes landlords liable for theft so that they'll do their duty to secure their building. I'm not arguing this point; moral hazard makes a lot of sense. If you want to argue that Trib Corp should have some negligence liability here, fine.
But there is no sense in which that kind of liability mitigates the criminal actions of others. If I go into a building for which the landlord is liable for theft, and I steal $5000 worth of crap (or cause $5000 worth of damage), I'm going to be prosecuted for that if I'm caught, no matter the landlord's liability. Criminal liability isn't shared due to negligence, and when criminal liability is shared (among accomplices and co-conspirators), it's not divided up among the parties --- because that would be silly.
Re: Former Reuters Journalist Matthew Keys Sentenced to Two Years for Hacking
#48I've read like 20 stories and I still can't figure out what Keys did that is actually illegal. He (or someone else) posted the login credentials to the Tribune's CMS, and then someone used those credentials to login and deface the site? Or am I missing something? That's like saying you can get in trouble for giving someone a key to your old apartment, and then they go use it to unlock the door and do whatever they fe…
[deleted]
Re: Former Reuters Journalist Matthew Keys Sentenced to Two Years for Hacking
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course. We're able to make the distinction of being hacked versus someone crawling through an open window. If only jurors could be expected to do the same.
What distinction is it that you're trying to make? Crawling into a building through an open window is no less of a crime than picking the locks. In fact: it's exactly the same crime.
Picking the locks is breaking and entering, going through an open window is illegal trespass, assuming you don't have to move any parts of the window. At least where I live. It depends on whether or not you have to use even the slightest amount of force to gain access. It also depends on your intent to commit a crime inside. If I'm looking for you because I've found your toddler wandering around outside and I open an unlocked door to call out your name, it isn't a crime. I'm not sure what happens if I pick a locked door in that situation, getting pretty contrived now. But let's say I heard your kid crying inside that you'd abandoned, it wouldn't be a crime to pick the lock and rescue him/her.
Re: Former Reuters Journalist Matthew Keys Sentenced to Two Years for Hacking
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
What distinction is it that you're trying to make? Crawling into a building through an open window is no less of a crime than picking the locks. In fact: it's exactly the same crime.
Picking the locks is breaking and entering, going through an open window is illegal trespass, assuming you don't have to move any parts of the window. At least where I live. It depends on whether or not you have to use even the slightest amount of force to gain access. It also depends on your intent to commit a crime inside. If I'm looking for you because I've found your toddler wandering around outside and I open an…
No, I don't think this is at all correct. Going through a window is breaking and entering.