The war on cyber-activists

January 27, 2015

Nicole Colson reports on the government's persecution of journalist Barrett Brown--and the effect it will have on those trying to investigate the crimes of the powerful.

FREELANCE JOURNALIST Barrett Brown was sentenced in federal court last week to 63 months in prison and more than $890,000 in fines--for the crime of linking to material obtained by the "hacktavist" collective Anonymous as part of his investigation into government corruption.

Brown has been in prison since September 2012. No one has alleged that Brown had a hand in illegally obtaining the information--which included thousands of files from security firms and government contractors, including HBGary Federal and Stratfor. But that didn't stop the government from threatening Brown with 100 years in prison at one point. This led him to eventually accept a plea deal.

The charges he pleaded guilty to were related to trying to hide two laptops when FBI agents searched his mother's house; nonspecific "threats" made in a YouTube video against an FBI agent (Brown vowed to "look into" the agent's kids and "ruin" his life); and being an "accessory after the fact" because Brown allegedly discussed with hacker Jeremy Hammond contacting Stratfor to see if the firm wanted redactions of hacked materials.

Barrett Brown
Barrett Brown

Brown's anger toward the FBI might be explained by the fact that over the space of several months, the Feds reportedly threatened his mother with arrest on multiple occasions for "obstruction of justice"--as a result of "harboring" her son and allegedly helping him conceal documents.

As The Intercept's Michelle Garcia pointed out, Brown's biggest alleged crime was that he linked to material that had been illegally obtained by Anonymous, some of which detailed the unscrupulous actions by various government contractors:

Through the online collective he founded, called Project PM, Brown analyzed and reported on the thousands of pages of leaked documents. The HBGary hack revealed a coordinated campaign to target and smear advocates for WikiLeaks and the Chamber of Commerce, while the Stratfor hack provided a rare window into the shadowy world of defense contractors.

Brown himself is not a hacker, but has defended Anonymous publicly and been referred to as an Anonymous "spokesperson," though he disputes that. In court, the government alleged that Project PM was, in essence, a "respectable" front for Anonymous--and that the faction Brown led was dedicated to "revolutionary" activities.


THERE ARE many reasons to be wary of the government's prosecution of Brown. For one, much of the evidence used to convict him has never been made available to the public. "The evidence that was discussed was often selectively disclosed by prosecutors, who tore from their original context lengthy chats and e-mails to depict Brown as a malicious hacker rather than a journalist," Garcia wrote.

As for the sentencing hearing, Garcia said, "[t]he proceeding itself far more resembled an aggressive prosecution than it did a standard sentencing hearing. Prosecutors repeatedly attacked Brown based on allegations that had long ago been dismissed, seemingly attempting to malign his character based on charges that he no longer faces and for which he was never convicted."

An even bigger issue is the prosecution of Barrett for "disseminating" stolen information by posting links to hacked information. This sets a chilling precedent for journalists.

Prosecutors made much of a link to credit card information exposed by one of the hacks that Brown posted in a chat room and later on a file-sharing website. Brown says he was unaware of the credit card information--his main focus in this hack was Stratfor's client list, which Brown had wanted to investigate. When some Anonymous members advocated that people use the credit card numbers to donate money to charity, Brown condemned that idea.

Although it has never been proven that Brown's actions led to any fraud, the government argued that the simple act of posting the link made Brown guilty after the fact for the hack itself, and for any further fraudulent use of the credit card information.

In court, defense attorney Marlo Cadeddu stated that the prosecution's claim about the link "has serious repercussions to journalists, researchers, people who link to public information. The government's argument should chill the bones of every journalist and every researcher."

Lawyer Ahmed Ghappour, director of the Liberty, Security and Technology Clinic at the University of California Hastings College of Law, agreed. "Looking at that as criminal conduct would probably bring an end to all digital journalism, period," Ghappour told Garcia. "There would be no reporting on leaks."

As Brown himself once said in a documentary about Anonymous called We Are Legion:

Some of the most important things that...in terms of what's been discovered, not just by Anonymous, but by the media in the aftermath, is the result of hacking. That information can't be obtained by institutional journalistic process, or it can't be obtained or won't be obtained by a congressional committee or a federal oversight committee. For the most part, that information has to be...obtained by hackers.

Journalist Glenn Greenwald made the same point in a 2013 article in Britain's Guardian newspaper. Warning that the prosecution of Brown "poses new and troubling risks," Greenwald wrote:

That's because Brown--who has been imprisoned since September on a 17-count indictment that could result in many years in prison--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...

So here we have the U.S. government targeting someone they clearly loathe because of the work he is doing against their actions. Then--using the most dubious legal theories, exploiting vague and broad criminal statutes, and driving him to ill-advised behavior with deliberately vindictive harassment (including aimed at his mother)--they transform what is at worst very trivial offenses into a multi-count felony indictment that has already resulted in his imprisonment for six months and threatens to imprison him for many years more...

[T]his prosecution is driven by the same plainly improper purpose that drove the one directed at Aaron Swartz and so many others: the desire to exploit the power of criminal law to deter and severely punish anyone who meaningfully challenges the government's power to control the flow of information on the Internet and conceal its vital actions.


AT HIS sentencing, Brown expressed remorse for his actions--while also criticizing the government: "If I criticize the government for breaking the law, but then break the law myself in an effort to reveal their wrongdoing, I should expect to be punished just as I've called for the criminals at government-linked firms, like HBGary and Palantir, to be punished."

Already, Brown's prosecution has had a chilling effect on the work of some cyber-activists and journalists. Security reporter Quinn Norton--whose partner Aaron Swartz committed suicide in January 2013 after being indicted by the government and repeatedly hounded by the FBI for "data theft" as a result of his cyberactivism--wrote after Brown's sentencing that she had decided to step back from her work:

Part of Barrett Brown's 63-month sentence, issued yesterday, is a 12-month sentence for a count of Accessory After the Fact, of the crime of hacking Stratfor. This sentence was enhanced by Brown's posting a link in chat and possessing credit card data. This, and a broad pattern of misunderstanding and criminalizing normal behavior online, has led me to feel that the situation for journalists and security researchers is murky and dangerous.

I am stepping back from reporting on hacking/data breach stories, and restricting my assistance to other journalists to advice. (But please, journalists, absolutely feel free to ask me for advice!) I can't look at the specific data another journalist has, and I can't pass it along to a security expert, without feeling like there's risk to the journalists I work with, the security experts and myself.

In a world where U.S. government officials who gave the green light for torture and war crimes remain free, Barrett Brown's unjust prosecution should send a clear warning about the lengths the U.S. government will go to in order to prevent its crimes from coming to light.

Further Reading

From the archives