Please refer to the following URL for the original website: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/02/fbi-anonymous-hacktivist-jeremy-hammond-terrorism-watchlist
FBI put Anonymous 'hacktivist' Jeremy Hammond on terrorism watchlist
- Leaked document calls hacker ‘possible terrorist organisation member’
- Civil liberties groups concerned at US government’s definition of terrorist
The prominent Anonymous “hacktivist” Jeremy Hammond, who participated
in some of the hacking collective’s most audacious cyber acts, was
placed by the FBI on a terrorism watchlist, the Daily Dot reported on
Monday.
The internet news website obtained a leaked document from the New York state division of criminal justice services that shows Hammond was classified as a “possible terrorist organisation member”. The document is marked “destroy after use” and includes the instruction: “Do not advise this individual that they are on a terrorist watchlist.”
The document obtained by the Daily Dot, which is dated from around the time of Hammond’s arrest, suggests that he was put on a central terrorism watchlist compiled by the FBI known as the Terrorist Screening Database. The documents do not spell out what justification, if any, the federal agency offered for including Hammond on the list, raising the possibility that the FBI designated him a possible terrorist by dint of his role as a so-called “hacktivist” within Anonymous.
Civil liberties groups said they were concerned that a hacker with no apparent history of terrorist behaviour or affiliations should be classified in this way.
“This raises questions about the US government’s definition of terrorism and whether they have expanded it to including hackers,” said Hanni Fakhoury, a senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Fakhoury said he was curious to know the identity of the “terrorist organisation” mentioned in the documents.
“If it was al-Qaida or Islamic State that would pose no problem for me, but if they were referring to Anonymous that would be a different proposition,” he said.
Hammond was arrested in March 2012 and sentenced in November the following year to 10 years in prison for his part in a series of high-profile hacks carried out in the name of Anonymous. One of the largest of those breaches in which Hammond played a leading role was the release of five million emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor.
He was prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). There was never any suggestion during the proceedings that he was involved in any activities related to terrorism or terrorist organisations.
Hammond has always insisted he is an activist and not a criminal, let alone a terrorist. In a recent opinion article for the Guardian, he argued that he and his fellow hackers were misunderstood.
“We are condemned as criminals without consciences, dismissed as anti-social teens without a cause, or hyped as cyber-terrorists to justify the expanding surveillance state. But hacktivism exists within the history of social justice movements,” he wrote.
A representative of the Terrorist Screening Center, which administers the database, said the centre “does not publicly confirm nor deny whether any individual may be included in the US government’s Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB). Disclosure of an individual’s inclusion or non-inclusion in the TSDB would significantly impair the government’s ability to investigate and counteract terrorism.”
The guidelines governing terrorism watchlists are overseen by an inter-agency committee within the US National Counterterrorism Center. They are cast very wide to include “acts dangerous to human life, property or infrastructure” that are “intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” or “affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction”.
Hugh Handeyside of the American Civil Liberties Union’s national security project said the US government’s approach to the watchlists was problematic on several levels.
“It involves a very broad definition of terrorism, has a poorly defined standard of ‘reasonable suspicion’ that has numerous exemptions, and has no meaningful way to seek redress,” he said.
The internet news website obtained a leaked document from the New York state division of criminal justice services that shows Hammond was classified as a “possible terrorist organisation member”. The document is marked “destroy after use” and includes the instruction: “Do not advise this individual that they are on a terrorist watchlist.”
The document obtained by the Daily Dot, which is dated from around the time of Hammond’s arrest, suggests that he was put on a central terrorism watchlist compiled by the FBI known as the Terrorist Screening Database. The documents do not spell out what justification, if any, the federal agency offered for including Hammond on the list, raising the possibility that the FBI designated him a possible terrorist by dint of his role as a so-called “hacktivist” within Anonymous.
Civil liberties groups said they were concerned that a hacker with no apparent history of terrorist behaviour or affiliations should be classified in this way.
“This raises questions about the US government’s definition of terrorism and whether they have expanded it to including hackers,” said Hanni Fakhoury, a senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Fakhoury said he was curious to know the identity of the “terrorist organisation” mentioned in the documents.
“If it was al-Qaida or Islamic State that would pose no problem for me, but if they were referring to Anonymous that would be a different proposition,” he said.
Hammond was arrested in March 2012 and sentenced in November the following year to 10 years in prison for his part in a series of high-profile hacks carried out in the name of Anonymous. One of the largest of those breaches in which Hammond played a leading role was the release of five million emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor.
He was prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). There was never any suggestion during the proceedings that he was involved in any activities related to terrorism or terrorist organisations.
Hammond has always insisted he is an activist and not a criminal, let alone a terrorist. In a recent opinion article for the Guardian, he argued that he and his fellow hackers were misunderstood.
“We are condemned as criminals without consciences, dismissed as anti-social teens without a cause, or hyped as cyber-terrorists to justify the expanding surveillance state. But hacktivism exists within the history of social justice movements,” he wrote.
A representative of the Terrorist Screening Center, which administers the database, said the centre “does not publicly confirm nor deny whether any individual may be included in the US government’s Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB). Disclosure of an individual’s inclusion or non-inclusion in the TSDB would significantly impair the government’s ability to investigate and counteract terrorism.”
The guidelines governing terrorism watchlists are overseen by an inter-agency committee within the US National Counterterrorism Center. They are cast very wide to include “acts dangerous to human life, property or infrastructure” that are “intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” or “affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction”.
Hugh Handeyside of the American Civil Liberties Union’s national security project said the US government’s approach to the watchlists was problematic on several levels.
“It involves a very broad definition of terrorism, has a poorly defined standard of ‘reasonable suspicion’ that has numerous exemptions, and has no meaningful way to seek redress,” he said.
2
3
Of course, What's missing is that he has
attacked and stolen credit card information before - was convicted in
2006 of stealing the credit card info of a political group he didn't
like (Protest Warrior) but was arrested before he could use them (he did
use the credit card numbers he got at Stratfor).
Or that people who were his victims were then targeted when they spoke out against him (everything from pizza/chinese-bombing to SWATing - when one of his victims testified to this, he smirked.
Perhaps most tellingly, though, he's also got violence convictions. He stormed into a restaurant with some 'friends', trashed the place and assaulted people, because the didn't like what a guy (a customer they had tracked down) said. Or his Felony Mob Action conviction for his activities in Chicago's Daley Plaza after the city didn't get the 2016 Olympic bid.
He's no shrinking violet, just tapping some keys. He is a typical middle-class boy of privilege, who has always done what he wants, and threatened those who doesn't go along with him. and he's not adverse to using violence (and threats of violence) to try and get others to change to his beliefs, and isn't THAT, at its core, what terrorism is about?
The whole Anonymous thing is a smoke-screen, he's not been part of it, for a while, and Anonymous has been singularly useless at anything except spouting rubbish for years anyway. Operation Payback, Avenge Assange, Ferguson, etc. Whole bunch of utterly useless noise.
Or that people who were his victims were then targeted when they spoke out against him (everything from pizza/chinese-bombing to SWATing - when one of his victims testified to this, he smirked.
Perhaps most tellingly, though, he's also got violence convictions. He stormed into a restaurant with some 'friends', trashed the place and assaulted people, because the didn't like what a guy (a customer they had tracked down) said. Or his Felony Mob Action conviction for his activities in Chicago's Daley Plaza after the city didn't get the 2016 Olympic bid.
He's no shrinking violet, just tapping some keys. He is a typical middle-class boy of privilege, who has always done what he wants, and threatened those who doesn't go along with him. and he's not adverse to using violence (and threats of violence) to try and get others to change to his beliefs, and isn't THAT, at its core, what terrorism is about?
The whole Anonymous thing is a smoke-screen, he's not been part of it, for a while, and Anonymous has been singularly useless at anything except spouting rubbish for years anyway. Operation Payback, Avenge Assange, Ferguson, etc. Whole bunch of utterly useless noise.
7
8
>"he did use the credit card numbers he got at Stratfor"
You are wrong. Jeremy did nothing with those cards, therefor your premise is a lie. Please refrain from spreading lies in order to smear a great individual.
I couldn't even finish reading your statements because they are so far from the truth. Jeremy is not a violent person. You are spouting ignorance and I have given you more attention than you deserve.
You are wrong. Jeremy did nothing with those cards, therefor your premise is a lie. Please refrain from spreading lies in order to smear a great individual.
I couldn't even finish reading your statements because they are so far from the truth. Jeremy is not a violent person. You are spouting ignorance and I have given you more attention than you deserve.
- 0 1www.offnow.org is getting it done!! Keep going!!
6
7
I think both you and I know he is not a
terrorist in the sense that most people think of. Its a dangerous
widening of the definition.
I think we all forget that South Africa branded Nelson Mandella a terrorist too. When you start classifying activists as terrorists its a slippery slope.
I think we all forget that South Africa branded Nelson Mandella a terrorist too. When you start classifying activists as terrorists its a slippery slope.
No comments:
Post a Comment