THANKS TO ANONYMOUS VIDEO FOR ANOTHER GREAT POSTER

BARRETT BROWN COULD BE FREE SOON!

After Signing a Plea Deal, Barrett Brown Could Leave Prison This Year

Written by

DANIEL STUCKEY

@danstuckeydaniel@motherboard.tv

April 4, 2014 // 12:20 AM CET

Illustration by Dell Cameron

On Monday, US Attorney Sarah Saldaña filed a superseding indictment in the government’s case against Barrett Brown.

“It’s conceivable,” attorney Jay Leiderman told me yesterday, that the prosecution, which dismissed 11 of Brown’s charges last month, “is about to reach a plea deal with Barrett.”

It appears now, that a plea deal has been reached. After bringing multiple cases against Brown, three of which he had pleaded "not guilty" to, federal prosecutors have salvaged a minute victory over Brown. Originally, they sought to put him behind bars for 105 years. The prosecutors were granted a seal on the plea agreement by the court.

Of the two counts pleaded to in the indictment, one, of “Accessory After the Fact,” links Brown to Jeremy Hammond a/k/a “o,” and the 2011 Stratfor hack. The otherclaims that Brown, having been “aided and abetted by another person,” (his mother), obstructed the execution of a search warrant on March 6, 2012, the day after Hammond’s arrest.

Leiderman, who was driving while we spoke, had me read the three-page indictment to him. If Brown pleaded to the two counts, we calculated together that he would face a maximum punishment of 4.5 years: the accessory charge carries a 2.5 year punishment, and the second count carries two maximum punishments (18 U.S. Code § 1501-1502) of “not more than one year.”

“Realistically, what he faces is 30 months with 19 already served,” said Kevin M. Gallagher, director of Free Barrett Brown. He added that Brown will likely petition the court for leniency, and told me, “We believe he has a strong chance of getting time served, and ultimately will be out of jail this year.”

The new indictment illustrates just how differently the government and his supporters view Brown's actions. Federal prosecutors state that he intentionally diverted attention away from Hammond, misleading the authorities (and Stratfor) with regards to his identity.

Brown is, however, a credentialed journalist who has been published by numerous respected outlets. As such, supporters would argue he had a constitutional right to defend his sources against prying federal investigators. The prosecution has continuously shifted its tactics in pursuing the case, and "has thoroughly embarrassed itself," said Leiderman. He reflected on the Government's dismissal of charges that sought to criminalize Brown's sharing of a hyperlink, citing a clear inability for prosecutors to hold their case together.

A re-arraignment is scheduled to take place in the Dallas federal courthouse on April 29th, according to electronic filings.

"Yeah," said Gallagher, "he's coming home soon."

TOPICS: journalism, barrett, Brown, federal, court, case, hacking, Jeremy, Hammond,Anonymous, texas, Dallas, power

Thanks to Anonymous Video for this ...

A Donation Plea From "Free Barrett Brown"

Dear friend of press freedom,

I’m writing to you with an urgent request: your support for the legal defense fund of Barrett Brown, an investigative journalist now facing life in prison as a result of his writing and research.

American journalism is under attack in 2013. In recent years we’ve seen an unprecedented wave of criminal investigations targeting reporters and whistleblowers, while prosecutors abuse vague laws regarding computer use to threaten activists with outrageous sentences. Today Barrett Brown faces the full weight of this crackdown. It’s up to us to ensure that Barrett sees justice and defeats the wildly excessive charges against him.

Barrett’s career as a journalist is a brave and colorful one. He has written for publications including Vanity Fair, the Guardian, and the Huffington Post; and he co-authored a popular book, Flock of Dodos. In 2010, the revelations brought to light by WikiLeaks spurred Barrett to start investigating the secretive world of private cybersecurity, defense and intelligence contractors. Barrett founded an independent think-tank, Project PM, and started reporting on the Anonymous hacktivist collective.

When Anonymous hacked into the records of the private security firm HBGary Federal in early 2011, Barrett’s zeal for transparency in taxpayer-funded yet little-known defense projects led him to spend months researching this company’s corrupt activities. He did the same in 2012, after the leak of thousands of records from the private intelligence firm Stratfor.

• Glenn Greenwald: ”Brown is a serious journalist who has spent the last several years doggedly investigating the shadowy and highly secretive underworld of private intelligence and defense contractors, who work hand-in-hand with the agencies of the Surveillance and National Security State in all sorts of ways that remain completely unknown to the public. It is virtually impossible to conclude that the obscenely excessive prosecution he now faces is unrelated to that journalism and his related activism.”

Despite his achievements, Barrett now waits in prison to fight a sentence of up to 105 years. The 17 charges against him are based on Barrett having blogged openly about FBI harassment of him and his family; on Barrett allegedly having hidden a laptop when a family member’s home was raided by the FBI in search of evidence against him; on his allegedly having “trafficked in stolen goods” — that is, Stratfor documents containing clients’ credit card data; and on his alleged “dissemination” of the Stratfor documents by simply copying and pasting a link to them in an online chat. There is no indication that Barrett sought to use the credit card numbers in any way; in fact, he publicly condemned Anonymous’ suggestion of doing so. As a journalist, Barrett felt responsible for exposing to the public the inner workings of firms contracting with the U.S. government — and for his efforts, he may receive a lifetime in prison.

Barrett’s prosecution highlights critical issues for American journalists, activists, and internet users:

• The right to link. The charges against Barrett for sharing the Stratfor data represent an attempt to criminalize linking. What does this mean for the rights of internet users, let alone journalists who link to primary source material? Online linking is used by millions daily. What absurd legal theory makes an internet user responsible for the content and consequences of a shared link, resulting in criminal charges?

• Information and press freedom. Barrett’s work to uncover the activities of private security and intelligence companies made him a prime target for prosecution. If citizens are prevented from researching the growing surveillance state, what will become of privacy, transparency, and civil liberties in America? Already we see chilling effects on journalists working to shed light on corruption and abuse among government contractors.

• Selective prosecution. Many others — including established reporters — shared the same link to Stratfor data named in Barrett’s indictment. Why is only Barrett being prosecuted? And why is the FBI worried enough about the speech of an unarmed writer to conduct heavily-armed raids on his home? Barrett’s case is a prime example of the DOJ’s current prosecutorial abuse of journalists, whistleblowers, and information activists.

• Reporters’ privilege. The laptop that Barrett allegedly hid contained journalistic sources and work product, including a book in progress. The First Amendment protects reporters from revealing confidential information or sources. It isn’t hard to conclude that the charges based on Barrett’s alleged concealment amount to an effort to stifle his reporting on America’s growing surveillance industry.

Fortunately, two of the most skilled and dedicated lawyers in the country have taken up the fight: Charles Swift and Ahmed Ghappour, best known for their advocacy on behalf of Guantánamo detainees, winning a victory over the Bush administration in a 2006 Supreme Court case. But even with expert representation, Barrett’s defense calls for resources that he doesn’t have. Your support is urgently needed to help Barrett regain his freedom and continue his vital work. And this is not Barrett’s fight alone — the outcome of this case will affect every American’s rights to free speech, to independent journalism, and to political activism. Not only does Barrett deserve a future — so do all of us, to preserve our right to know what our government does in secret, yet in our names.

Barrett’s trial begins in September. His defense is being funded entirely through individual donors. With less than three months to go, will you help today?

Three easy ways to contribute:

• WePay

• PayPal: donate@freebarrettbrown.org

• Checks or money orders mailed to: Free Barrett Brown Ltd., P.O. Box 2658, Amherst, MA 01004

Suggested levels of support:

•     $30 — Friend of Online Journalism

•     $60 — Friend of Press Freedom

•     $120 — Friend of Barrett Brown

•     $300 — Friend of the First Amendment

•     $600 — Friend of the Constitution

•     $1000 — Friend of Justice

Don’t let the government take away a courageous journalist’s life with abusive prosecution for alleged information “crimes.” Free Barrett Brown.

With many thanks, and in solidarity,

Kevin M. Gallagher
Director
Free Barrett Brown

Twitter: @FreeBarrett_

Facebook: Free Barrett Brown

Website: freebarrettbrown.org

Ky Anonymous/Deric Lostutter Under Public Fire

Submitted by Don Carpenter on Mon, 06/17/2013 - 11:19

Re-blogged on 20 June 2013

Link to original: http://mobilebroadcastnews.com/NewsRoom/Don-Carpenter/Ky-AnonymousDeric-Lostutter-Under-Public-Fire?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MobileBroadcastNews+(Mobile+Broadcast+News Reprinted with the gracious permission of the author.  

6 months ago, thousands of people rallied behind the man known only (then) as KY Anonymous and #knightsec as he rallied the world behind a 16 year old rape victim in Steubenville, Ohio. The tactics then were aggressive weaponizing the media, and posting countless tweets regarding some individuals involved and quite a few not involved in the Steubenville rape case. 2 boys were already charged and on house arrest when anonymous got involved, but the goal was to alert the world to the graphic details behind the story. Some of those details were false or grossly exaggerated by either Ky or his supporters, but the goal nonetheless was to produce public outrage over the shaming of this girl.

The mission to weaponize the media and produce such outrage was accomplished. Thousands rallied in Steubenville. Media from across the world camped out in Steubenville. Ky did some media interviews, and eventually the 2 boys charged were tried and sentenced in a court of law. #oprollredroll was over and a success according to the initial goals set out in the beginning. Everyone touted the Knightsec/KY banner for over 6 months until the last few days after Ky unmasked as Deric Lostutter revelaing the feds had raided his home gathering evidence on the rollredroll.com website hack that his partner Batcat aka Noah Mchugh did. It appears that Noah, a defense department employee will not be charged with any crimes. Noah is preparing for his wedding while Deric(KY) is facing 25 years in prison for his role in #oprollredroll. A grand jury has been convened in Steubenville and is hearing evidence on 16 individuals who refused to cooperate during the initial August 2012 rape investigation, and will determine if other crimes were commited during said investigation.

Deric after unmasking began seeking donations for his legal defense, but soon after raising over $40,000 alot of his supporters began turning on him as he proceeded to do dozens of interviews. Deric/KY was soon attacked on twitter as a "fame whore, ego fag, fake, fraud" and worse descriptions that we won't get into here. There has also been countless youtube videos made by Deric in which he uses satire to make fun of women, food stamps and more that are now being used against the boy in the public's eyes.

People quickly began forgetting how Deric/Ky started #oprollredroll as a means to not only stand up for a rape victim, but for a cause he believed in which entailed speaking out against crimes and a situation in a small Ohio town that he believed was wrong. That is something that this country was founded upon, and something people continue to fight for to this very day. The right to stand up for yourself, and the right to stand up and speak out against things you believe are wrong. The right to risk your freedom, and everything you have to speak out against the government, and stand up for your beliefs.

Over the weekend, Deric/Ky clearly beginning to feel the pressure of his pending legal troubles and the constant attacks of his once supporters/now haters, Deric according to his tweets got drunk, and began fighting back against those trash talking him on social media. This went on for hours until, Commander X attorney Jay Leiderman stepped in and advised the 26 year old Kentucky rapper to hush up, and take a break from twitter. Ky took the advice touting some kind of special announcement later today on the Jake Tapper show on CNN.

The entire thing reminds me of a Captain America dissertation on Mark Twain during the Marvel civil war series in which Captain America was labeled a criminal by the government for standing against laws he felt to be unconstitutional. The quotes are as follows:

"I remember the first time I really understood what it was to be an American...What it was to be a patriot." 

"I was just a kid...A million years ago, it seems sometimes. Maybe twelve. I was reading Mark Twain. And he wrote something that struck me right down to my core...something so powerful, so true, that it changed my life. I memorized it so I could repeat it to myself, over and over across the years. He wrote --'In a republic, who is the country? 

Is it the government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the government is merely a temporary servant: it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. It's function is to obey orders, not originate them. 

Who, then is the country? Is it the newspaper? Is it the pulpit? Why, these are mere parts of the country, not the whole of it, they have not command, they have only their little share in the command. 

In a monarchy, the king and his family are the country: In a republic it is the common voice of the people each of you, for himself, by himself and on his own responsibility, must speak. 

It is a solemn and weighty responsibility, and not lightly to be flung aside at the bullying of pulpit, press, government, or the empty catchphrases of politicians. 

Each must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, and which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. 

To decide it against your convictions is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may. 

If you alone of all the nation shall decide one way, and that way be the right way according to your convictions of the right, you have your duty by yourself and by your country. Hold up your head. You have nothing to be ashamed of'." 

Cap continues, "Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right.  

This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree besides the river of truth, and tell the whole world-- 

--No,you move."

That's a very powerful speech, and Deric has remained vocal since coming back into the public light. Many people fault him for that, but what if it was you. Would you remain silent facing 25 years in prison while your partner, a government employee gets away scott free? Would you not weaponize the media again to get your side of the story out there? After knowingly risking your freedom by speaking out and conducting various other anon ops not want a little help from your comrades, and to let the public know what is going on?

I personally have no dog in this fight, and can't wait until the Steubenville drama is over. i may not have agreed with all the tactics used during #oprollredroll, but as I was reporting it I couldn't say that. I will say that I am fully behind the idea that is anonymous. The rights to stand up for what you believe in no matter what the cost.

I also feel that not just KY should be facing prison time as it pertains to the Steubenville case if the government wants to go after anonymous, and conduct by individuals during the course of this drama. So far, Ky is the biggest fish nabbed by the feds, but there were bomb threats made against local schools in steubenville (suspected by what one Steubenville Law enforcement official on grounds of anonymity describes as  "locals who just wanted to start shit and put a bad name on the pecaeful masked up protesters from the rallies.) The investigation into those threats, death threats against Sherrif Fred Abdalla, his family, Chief Mccafferty and his family, as well as threats against this reporter are still being investigated with no arrests. I'm told the FBI has suspects but no one except KY and potentially the individuals on the block by the grand jury are facing charges. It's definite KY will be facing charges, the grand jury has no guarantee of charges.

The question is, why are they dragging ass on the individuals who threatened residents, journalists, and law enforcement officials not caught yet and facing charges.

Say what you want about Deric/Ky, but he stood up for what he believed in despite the consequences. How many of us can honestly say that we would do that until the bitter end?

If you need help with your PR Deric, gimme a call. That'll mean I can no longer cover this stuff, but I respect you standing up for what you believe in no matter what, and want to help if I can as it pertains to your social media and media stuff.
There are still many KY supporters out there. In situations like this, the good always outweighs the bad.

One thing is damn sure though: Steubenville is no longer about a 16 year old rape victim. It's become more about people attacking each other over who is right, and who is wrong. That the masked people are evil, and the town supporters are right and vice versa. It's become a gross shell of it's former self with the young teen lost in the mix. It's about second guessing, hating on each other, and trying to make people look bad on either side of the coin. It's now about attcking and second guessing MSM,bloggers and Indy journalists.It's about pointing out each other's mistakes. (and there were mistakes galore made during this case on all sides: anon, media, town supporters, anon supporters, and hell I made quite a few, but what does it matter this was never about any of us.)

People have lost their minds over this case finally, and it's become a pathetic shit show.

Pretty Neat: A Wikipedia Article is Live

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Leiderman

Jay Leiderman (Born 12 April 1971) is an American criminal defense lawyer. The Atlantic Magazine called Leiderman the “Hacktivist’s Advocate” ^[1] for his work defending hacker-activists (“hacktivists”) accused of computer crimes, ^[2] especially people associated with Anonymous. ^{[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]} Other noteworthy cases Leiderman defended include the Andrew Luster or so-called "Max Factor" heir habeas corpusproceeding ^[9] [10] People v. Diaz, which went to the California Supreme Court and made law on the ability of police to search a cell phone, ^[11] Louis Gonzalez, who was falsely accused of rape, attampted murder and torture by the mother of his child ^[12] and was jailed for 83 days before he was released and ultimately found factually innocent, ^[13] the first-ever trial of medical marijuana defendants in San Luis Obispo County, California County, ^[14] and Ventura County, California's first concentrated Mexican Mafia prosecution. ^[15] Leiderman also co-authored a book on the legal defense of California medical marijuana crimes, which was published by NORML, the National Organization For the Reform of Marijuana Laws ^[16]

References [edit]

1. ^ Hacktivist’s Advocate – Meet the Lawyer Who Defends Anonymous, The Atlantic 3 October 2012
2. ^ Ventura attorney represents high-profile hackers in a red-hot area of the law, Ventura County Star 23 March 2013
3. ^ Feds: Homeless hacker 'Commander X' arrested, CBS News
4. ^ Ars Technica “Anon On The Run How Commander X Jumped Bail and Fled to Canada” by Nate Anderson
5. ^ Hacking group activist's posts land him in trouble, Huffington Post, 5 October 2012
6. ^ LulzSec Member Pleads Guilty
7. ^ ‘Homeless Hacker’ Lawyer: DDoS Isn’t An Attack, It’s A Digital Sit In, Talking Points Memo (TPM) 28 September 2011
8. ^ Social Media Editor Enters Plea in Hacking Case, Time 23 April 2013
9. ^ "Convicted Rapist, Max Factor Heir Andrew Luster Seeks New Trial" Los Angeles Times 22 April 2012
10. ^ Hearing scheduled in Andrew Luster's appeal of rape sentence,Ventura County Star 10 December 2012
11. ^ State's high court rules police can conduct warrantless cell phone search,Ventura County Star 4 January 2011
12. ^ Los Angeles Times “In This Assault Case, The Puzzle Pieces Don’t Fit” by Christopher Goffard
13. ^ Los Angeles Times “A Man’s Nightmare Made Real”
14. ^ The age of 'reason' Two defendants are acquitted in a historic medical marijuana case for SLO County, New Times 14 September 2011
15. ^ Police say Mexican Mafia prison gang led crime ring in Ventura County 27 November 2012 Ventura County Star
16. ^ NORML.org Page for Medical Marijuana Law in California by Jay Leiderman and James B. Devine

Thanks to the Ventura County Star for this great profile of me!

Ventura attorney represents high-profile hackers in a red-hot area of the law

Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2013/mar/23/ventura-attorney-represents-high-profile-hackers/?partner=RSS#ixzz2PXSIC5oa
- vcstar.com 


By Tony Biasotti
Posted March 23, 2013

 PHOTO BY TROY HARVEY, VENTURA COUNTY STAR

Jay Leiderman, a criminal defense attorney, checks his iPad for an update on a case in his Ventura office.

The client was known online as Commander X, the leader of the People’s Liberation Front, a group allied with the hacker collective Anonymous. He was suspected of engineering an attack on the county of Santa Cruz’s servers, an allegation that could land him in prison for up to 15 years.

His attorney, Jay Leiderman of Ventura, had never defended a computer crimes case. In the summer of 2011, after weeks of email and phone conversations, they decided to meet in person.

By then, Leiderman knew his client’s real name, but Commander X was keeping his identity a secret to the outside world. The client had a protocol for their meeting, and his lawyer followed it. Leiderman went to a specific street corner in a Northern California town — he won’t say which one — where he found a middle-aged homeless man sitting on the sidewalk.

Leiderman wrapped a dollar bill around his business card and dropped it in the man’s hat. Then he walked two blocks to a nearby park and sat on an empty bench.

The homeless man got up a few minutes later and joined Leiderman on the park bench. He was Christopher Doyon, also known as Commander X. The two men talked for hours.

“It feels really exciting at first, like you’re this spy lawyer,” Leiderman said in a recent interview in his Ventura office. “But then you get serious and get to work about it. It all gets normal very quickly.”

Helping shape law

Today, Leiderman is one of the top attorneys in the country for people accused of violating the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, or the CFAA. It’s a red-hot area of law, the subject of recent congressional hearings by lawmakers concerned with the prosecution of programmer and activist Aaron Swartz, who was facing CFAA charges when he committed suicide in January.

Although he didn’t work on Swartz’s defense, Leiderman seems to have had a piece of almost every other headline-grabbing hacking case. This month, when Reuters social media editor Matthew Keys was indicted on charges of enabling a hack of a newspaper website owned by his former employer, Tribune Company, he hired Leiderman as one half of his defense team.

Like the rest of his computer crimes work, Leiderman took the Keys case pro bono. He pays the bills doing standard criminal defense work in Ventura County, including the ongoing appeal of convicted rapist Andrew Luster’s 124-year sentence, and defending medical marijuana sellers all over the state.

Computer crimes interest him for the same reason medical marijuana does: It’s an area of the law that’s relatively new, so there are plenty of gray areas and potential test cases.

“In both cases, you’re just starting to see the law being shaped, and you can be the tip of that blade that’s shaping the law,” he said.

Leiderman, 41, started his career as a public defender and now has his own firm. He traces his interest in computer crimes to late 2010 and early 2011, when his wife was pregnant with their son. They’d stopped going out at night, and Leiderman quickly grew tired of watching television.

He started reading about the hacker collective Anonymous and its war on PayPal, Visa and MasterCard. The companies had all blocked donations to WikiLeaks after the site published its trove of leaked diplomatic cables. Anonymous retaliated with something called a distributed denial-of-service attack, slowing down the financial companies’ websites.

The U.S. government was tracking the hackers and prosecuting some of them, and that didn’t sit well with Leiderman. He thought the denial-of-service attacks were legitimate protests and should be treated the same as a march or a sit-in.

Sometime in the spring of 2011, Leiderman announced on Twitter that he would be happy to represent any “righteous hacktivists” free of charge. A friend retweeted the message to influential people in the hacker community, and the next thing Leiderman knew, he was exchanging emails with Commander X.

Crime, punishment

Because he takes the cases pro bono, Leiderman is picky about which hackers he represents. In his view, they are people who are unjustly targeted by the government or who wouldn’t be able to navigate the justice system on their own.

He thinks Doyon is an example of both. Commander X was a sophisticated hacker and online activist, the leader of the People’s Liberation Front, a group allied with Anonymous. Christopher Doyon was a 50-something homeless man whose most recent photo ID, Leiderman said, was a 20-year-old library card.

Doyon allegedly hit the county of Santa Cruz with a distributed denial-of-service attack that slowed its servers to a crawl for half an hour. He claimed he did so to protest the county’s actions in breaking up a protest of the city of Santa Cruz’s policy against sleeping in public.

“It was a symbolic crime,” Leiderman said. “A symbolic punishment would have been something like a $200 fine.”

Instead, Doyon was arrested on federal CFAA charges that carry a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison. Leiderman said it was likely that Doyon would get six months or less, but a 15-year sentence was on the table.

Doyon jumped bail and says he fled to Canada last year. In an email interview, he said the stiff potential sentence was one reason he fled, along with bail conditions that severely limited his use of the Internet.

Doyon said he felt bad about fleeing because he knew it would make things difficult for Leiderman, whom he considers a friend and “one of the greatest attorneys ever.”

“Jay has a deeply held passion for the freedom of information and cyberactivism movement,” Doyon said.

Prosecutors disagree

Federal prosecutors dispute Leiderman’s characterization of his clients as righteous protesters or harmless hobbyists.

One of Leiderman’s clients, Raynaldo Rivera, pleaded guilty in October to his part in a 2011 hack of Sony Pictures Entertainment by LulzSecurity, or LulzSec.

Sony had sued a hacker for “jailbreaking” his PlayStation 3 to let it run software unapproved by Sony and publishing a guide on his website for others to do the same. LulzSec then obtained and posted the names, passwords and personal information of thousands of Sony accounts.

Leiderman maintains that Rivera, now 20, is a “good and promising man” who was manipulated by an older LulzSec leader. Rivera will be sentenced soon, and Leiderman said he hopes that his client will get probation rather than prison.

The U.S. attorney’s office agreed to seek a sentence at the low end of the possible guidelines for Rivera. Still, Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, said in an email that Rivera committed a serious crime that put thousands of people at risk of identity theft. Some people did report having their email or Facebook accounts hacked after their Sony information was released online.

“This type of conduct is more than a prank and is worthy of a federal criminal prosecution,” Mrozek said. “I’m sure that each and every person at risk of identity theft as a result of Mr. Rivera’s criminal conduct would agree.”

The law’s future

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was passed in 1984, and Leiderman believes that it is obsolete in many respects. Back then, Congress was concerned about a scenario like in the movie “War Games,” in which a hacker infiltrates Pentagon computers and almost starts World War III. Computer networks were rare, and someone hacking into one was presumed to have bad intentions.

Today, computers are everywhere, and the CFAA can be vague on what constitutes illegal access to one.

Even when access is clearly illegal, Leiderman and other reformers see a problem in the law’s sentencing guidelines.

Slowing down Santa Cruz County’s website carries the same maximum 15-year sentence as an attack that permanently destroys the site of a major corporation or government agency and costs it millions of dollars. In practice, a hacker who doesn’t cause much harm isn’t likely to get a long sentence, but it is possible.

“They’re still facing 15 years, and a judge that gets pissed off can throw them in prison for 15 years if he wants,” Leiderman said.

There are signs that Leiderman’s position on the CFAA is gaining traction. A House subcommittee this month heard testimony on the law. Many lawmakers said they were opposed to any reduction in the scope of computer crimes or the severity of penalties, but others were open to changes.

The current CFAA is the one Leiderman must deal with. His latest case, that of Matthew Keys, will keep Leiderman on the front pages and the airwaves. He was recently interviewed on NPR and the Huffington Post, making the case that Keys was acting as a journalist, not a co-conspirator, in his dealings with Anonymous.

A few days before Keys was arrested, Leiderman sat in his office and said he was looking for “that next great case.”

“I want to make the government stop and think about what they’re doing, and maybe change what they’re doing,” he said.

© 2013 Ventura County Star. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.