Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Security The Internet IT

Former Anonymous Spokesperson Indicted 114

Posted by Soulskill
from the be-careful-what-links-you-copy dept.
SternisheFan sends this quote from Ars: "On Friday, a federal grand jury in Dallas indicted Barrett Brown, a former self-proclaimed Anonymous spokesperson, for trafficking 'stolen authentication features,' as well as 'access device fraud' and 'aggravated identity theft.' Brown has been detained since he was arrested in September for allegedly threatening a federal agent. 10 counts of the 12-count indictment concern the aggravated identity theft charge (the indictment references 10 people from whom Brown is alleged to have stolen information), but the most interesting charge is probably the first; a single count saying Brown, 'did knowingly traffic in more than five authentication features knowing that such features were stolen and produced without lawful authority.' But rather than a physical back-alley hand-off, this alleged trafficking happened online when Barrett transferred a hyperlink, 'from the Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channel called "#Anonops" to an IRC channel under Brown's control, called "#ProjectPM."' That hyperlink happened to include over 5,000 credit card numbers, associating Ids, and Card Verification Values (CVVs) from the Stratfor Global Intelligence database."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Former Anonymous Spokesperson Indicted

Comments Filter:
  • ED entry (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gmhowell (26755) <gmhowell@gmail.com> on Sunday December 09, 2012 @06:25AM (#42232301) Homepage Journal

    And now you know! [encyclopediadramatica.se]

  • Former? (Score:5, Informative)

    by rossdee (243626) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @06:26AM (#42232305)

    Well I guess he's not anonymous anymore now they caught him.

    • by elucido (870205) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @07:12AM (#42232439)

      He was promoting himself. He did not understand what he was doing. He was a typical kid from the suburbs getting himself involved with cartels, pissing off the FBI, and challenging the US military establishment. He is lucky to be arrested and be alive, and yes he's going to be spending many years in prison as apparently he did not agree to become an informant.

      • by gl4ss (559668)

        still, posting the link to the data from a practically public forum to another.. what the fuck kind of crime is that?

        I think I saw links to the data on slashdot. in any case at the point he was linking to them they were for all intents and purposes already public.

        • by elucido (870205)

          still, posting the link to the data from a practically public forum to another.. what the fuck kind of crime is that?

          I think I saw links to the data on slashdot. in any case at the point he was linking to them they were for all intents and purposes already public.

          When they want to get someone they'll fish for something illegal until they find something. There are so many laws on the books that it's a certainty we are all criminals so if they want to get you they can.

          • by amiga3D (567632)

            Exactly. Everyone in the US is a criminal. If they want you there is a law somewhere they can use to burn you.

            • Everyone in the US is a criminal. If they want you there is a law somewhere they can use to burn you.

              Yes. However, those who challenge the authorities should not be surprised by the response. It's one thing to be targeted, but it's quite another to paint the target on your own back.

          • When they want to get someone they'll fish for something illegal until they find something.

            Hence the need for powerful friends who can be called upon for favors. If you cannot afford such friends then it's best to remain hidden and out of site amongst the great unwashed masses. Remember, it's the tall grass that gets cut first by the scythe.

    • by Chewbacon (797801)
      Hope they all go down. These guys play Robin Hood, but they've victimized the "poor" too many times with their antics. They're a self serving group just like those they claim to be against.
      • by ultranova (717540)

        Hope they all go down. These guys play Robin Hood, but they've victimized the "poor" too many times with their antics.

        But once they're down, the Sheriff of Nottingham can focus all his attention on you.

        And besides, haven't you got the memo? Robin Hood was a socialist who took from the job creators and distributed to the looters. We should be rooting for Prince John, the brave entrepreneur who stood up against the governmental authority of King Richards. Indeed, John and the Sheriff should go live off of a

        • by Chewbacon (797801)
          In either case, the victims are innocent people. These guys are fortunate they are not being labeled as terrorists and charged as such.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09, 2012 @06:35AM (#42232329)

    So now posting a URL can be trafficking in whatever it links to even if you're not serving it?

    This is nuts, think of the implications;

    Post a link to pirate bay and you've trafficked copyrighted material!?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Real world analogy would be, "See that car round the corner? I think it's stolen" = Trafficking in stolen vehicles / Grand theft auto.

      • by anyaristow (1448609) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @07:10AM (#42232431)

        No, real world analogy would be, "See that car around the corner? It's unlocked and you don't need a key to start it. You're welcome." = Trafficking in stolen vehicles

        • by Swampash (1131503)

          Real-world analogy: "You can buy drugs in Washington Heights" = trafficking in drugs.

          This, of course, is the same logic employed by Big Media when pursuing thiev-- sorry, copyright infringers.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            real world analogy: "you can buy drugs in washington heights, here let me take you to my buddies house where you can get some"

            also note the date and the date of the compromise and of course the other charges in the indictment that at least implies they're saying he's involved in the initial hack and was responsible for distributing the information; i bet the irc logs in question go like "lol heres some credit card numbers go use them"

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Except, that, if you're using the bittorrent protocol to "download", you're sending data out about it too, thus, trafficing.

            I'm also sure the media doesn't know the full gambit of info - for all we know, they tracked the link and found others in his ProjectPM channel to have downloaded the information. Thus, the trafficing charge.

        • by lonecrow (931585)
          The term everyone is looking for is Criminal Solicitation:
          http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-solicitation/ [uslegal.com]

          I am not saying that posting this link was Criminal Solicitation, but I am sure some lawyer could argue it was.

          Which makes me wonder why they don't charge all those people who encourage suicide. Suicide is illegal in most states isn't it? So if someone posts "Go ahead bump yourself off", then I think someone could successfully argue that they encouraged an illegal act.

          In this case the a
      • by Shavano (2541114)
        I think in this case his bragging that he was associated with a notorious cracker ring will come into the evidence somewhere.
    • by elucido (870205)

      So now posting a URL can be trafficking in whatever it links to even if you're not serving it?

      This is nuts, think of the implications;

      Post a link to pirate bay and you've trafficked copyrighted material!?

      That is a legit argument. Legally that is a concern but honestly at this point considering the stakes of the situation they weren't going to fight fair. If you piss off or threaten the feds they'll find something. Just ask Jim Bell.

    • It is nuts, but not new. And since you mentioned PB, which is an example of exactly the same; metadata but no content. Unfortunately, that did not shield them from attack, eventually conviction, and lately censorship.

      Judges, politicians, and governments everywhere are starting to catch up on the technology. Unsurprisingly, they twist it in their favour, and use it to survival, censor, and control.

      It is time to build a new network: Decentralized, anonymous, encrypted, and free.
    • The other implication is: every link you post is potentially landing you in jail if for whatever reason it is altered to point to illegal content.

      You link a lolcat pic, the lolcat site goes belly up, the domain gets sold and the page becomes mere ad space, one of the ad gets hacked or the ads display adult content. YOU are now linking to illegal stuff or inappropriate stuff (the lolcat pic was in a site for students or teens and now it displays boobs).

      Improbable you say? SURE. But how many links you will po

    • by Shavano (2541114)

      Aided others in doing so and probably conspired to do so, at least.

      But here's the rub. Let's say you post a link to something that looks like a interesting information piece on Slashdot.
      Unbeknownst (= really stupid word, by the way! ) to you, that site has a link on it to a file containing thousands of stolen credit card numbers, bank account numbers and unencrypted passwords. Now you are a suspect in an "identity theft" case. (We used to call this kind of thing bank fraud, but now it's identity thef

  • by elucido (870205) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @07:10AM (#42232433)

    Let this be a lesson to any cyber pranksters or not so serious e-revolutionaries. These sorts of games are very dangerous and only lead to two possible outcomes, getting yourself killed or getting yourself locked away in prison.

    The same thing happened in the 60s-70s when the Black Panthers, Crips, Gangster Disciples and many urban gangs wanted to fight for social justice through unity. The problem with these gangs is they did not understand that the FBI wasn't going to go along with that. FBI has had a counter intelligence program since the 1940s founded after the business plot coup attempt against FDR. Originally COINTELPRO was designed to protect the USA from fascists but when World War 2 ended World War 3 began (the Cold War) and it reached it's peak in the 60s-70s.

    The problem with these e-revolutionaries is they don't study history. They don't understand that many of them are being exploited by foreign intelligence agencies, basically being tooled, and in many cases are nothing more than useful idiots. Just as the USA launched a war on drugs to fight and win the 60s Civil War, and now due to the crackdown on gangs you have millions of prisoners who are directly connected or the descendants of Black Panthers and or other groups. No one was paying any attention or fighting for these political prisoners and it's not over.

    The new front is the internet. The government has made Julian Assange enemy of the state. Anyone who isn't prepared to go to prison or get killed should immediately distance themselves from this situation because the stakes are too high. You may disagree with your government, you may agree with the values of Julian Assange, but it does not mean it is going to be wise for you or your family to get involved in the situation. Cyberwarfare is not fun, it's not fair, there are no human rights, you can be entrapped, framed, set up for crimes you didn't do, or tricked into doing things you didn't know were crimes. You'll never know who among your friends are informants, you'll never see all the angles or know who is trying to get you killed or get you arrested.

    The life of a revolutionary is very similar to the life of a gangster. It's often a shortened life. This is something many of the kids involved do not understand because they did not grow up around gangs and had somewhat sheltered childhoods. If they understood the dangers they wouldn't get involved. Barrett Brown is in over his head, he did not understand the dangers of which he got himself involved in. He also underestimated the lengths that governments will go to take someone out. The governments who want to take people like him out do not have any limits, they have way more technology than he can possibly hope to deal with, way more resources than he could possibly fathom, and a ruthlessness he cannot hope to understand.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09, 2012 @07:46AM (#42232585)

      Someone has to do it.

    • Hi,

      My mod point just expired... but this comment is just beyond spot-on. Mod up!
      This is also one of the saddest comment I've read on Slashdot.

      Merc.

    • by Hentes (2461350)

      But 4chan promised them they will al be anonymous and nobody can find them!

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The same thing happened in the 60s-70s when the Black Panthers, Crips, Gangster Disciples and many urban gangs wanted to fight for social justice through unity. The problem with these gangs is they did not understand that the FBI wasn't going to go along with that. FBI has had a counter intelligence program since the 1940s founded after the business plot coup attempt against FDR. Originally COINTELPRO was designed to protect the USA from fascists but when World War 2 ended World War 3 began (the Cold War) a

      • by elucido (870205)

        Wait, what? The crips and gangster disciples were established to fight for social justice? I think its you that needs to go read a history book.

        If you know the history of these gangs and the founding members you would understand why they started these gangs. They were started as a means of obtaining social justice for disenfranchised minority groups and youth during the civil rights era where minorities could not trust the police because there were few if any minority police, where the government was openly racist, where the KKK was still around. The fact that you don't know anything about Urban history proves my point that you're one of the people

        • by ultranova (717540)

          If you're saying some Anon are patriotic then that is fine and dandy but some Anon act like domestic terrorists and are unpatriotic and you have to accept that truth as well. The Julian Assange faction of Anon is misguided.

          If publishing the truth makes you "unpatriotic", then frankly, your country is unworthy of patriotism.

          • by elucido (870205)

            If you're saying some Anon are patriotic then that is fine and dandy but some Anon act like domestic terrorists and are unpatriotic and you have to accept that truth as well. The Julian Assange faction of Anon is misguided.

            If publishing the truth makes you "unpatriotic", then frankly, your country is unworthy of patriotism.

            Some information should not be widely distributed. Some information should not be leaked or published as it can put lives in danger, destroy peoples reputation or lives, or destroy society itself. It is not patriotic to leak classified information.

    • by Eskarel (565631)

      The problem with Anonymous (and many of the ones you mentioned) is that they aren't freedom fighters so much as criminals. Taking down Mastercard and Visa when they refused payments to Wikileaks, freedom fighters, nicking innocent peoples credit cards and using them without consent, criminals. They have the usual attitude that anyone who isn't a member of their little group must be some form of sheeple and it's ok to damage or steal from the sheeple for any reason whatsoever. Problem is, the thing that keep

      • by Bing Tsher E (943915) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @10:29AM (#42233283) Journal

        A way to rephrase what you wrote in the proper jargon is:

        Anonymous aren't revolutionary. They're adventurists. [marxists.org]

        Same as it ever was when middle class kids decide to take on 'The Man.'

      • by elucido (870205)

        The problem with Anonymous (and many of the ones you mentioned) is that they aren't freedom fighters so much as criminals. Taking down Mastercard and Visa when they refused payments to Wikileaks, freedom fighters, nicking innocent peoples credit cards and using them without consent, criminals. They have the usual attitude that anyone who isn't a member of their little group must be some form of sheeple and it's ok to damage or steal from the sheeple for any reason whatsoever. Problem is, the thing that keeps you from getting destroyed by the powers that be, that would be the support of the sheeple. Anonymous are a bunch of dickheads who incidentally do the right thing sometimes, just like lulzsec and a dozen other similar groups. Just because they occasionally aim their sights at "the bad guys" doesn't make them "the good guys". Tracking down identity thieves and credit card thieves is what the FBI is for, and this guy can rot for all I care.

        The problem is many of them are uninformed, misinformed, or ill advised. My parent comment was to highlight the fact that many Anons are just teenage script kiddies, followers, in over their head, who don't really know whether their actions are right or wrong but who are following their gut instincts or feelings. I'm not claiming ever Anon is like this but the way they go about certain things or the ideas behind certain ops appear to be motivated entirely by gut reactions, feelings, without any real conside

        • by Eskarel (565631)

          The man in TFA is 30, he's not a kid and he knows or at least should have known what he was doing. In addition to his acts of protest he appears to have engaged in acts which are purely criminal. I'm as sick as anyone of this attitude that no one is willing to pay for doing the right thing and cries afterwards, but this isn't that case. These idiots(and seemingly this idiot in particular) stole peoples credit cards and identities and then shared them with the world, they didn't do this because it was a stri

    • by gl4ss (559668)

      So, what you're saying is that you work for the feds, that Black Panthers and Crips are the same kind of groups, USA had a civil war in the sixties(wait, was Vietnam a state in USA) and that the feds have magic cyberwarfare tech and shot Martin Luther King and Bloods are pretty much like IRA and not a drug dealing organization?

      Come on, it doesn't take that much to get involved in saying that certain politics are bullshit, but that's all it really needs. they're not going to come to your house and shoot you

      • by elucido (870205)

        So, what you're saying is that you work for the feds,

        No, I just do my research and have a graduate level education. I study history and computer science. I know how government works and how computers work. I am not working for the feds just because I'm not with Julian Assange. I don't agree with Julian Assange philosophically.

        that Black Panthers and Crips are the same kind of groups, USA had a civil war in the sixties(wait, was Vietnam a state in USA) and that the feds have magic cyberwarfare tech

        Do you work for foreign intelligence? Why do you want to deny that COINTELPRO exists? When the feds spend 500-600 billion every year on military spending you don't think any of that will be used for Cyberwarfare or Cybersecurity? You don

        • by gmhowell (26755)

          I was not aware that you could tighten a tin foil hat enough to cut off blood flow to the brain without the hat tearing. I really would like to meet your haberdasher.

          • by elucido (870205)

            I was not aware that you could tighten a tin foil hat enough to cut off blood flow to the brain without the hat tearing. I really would like to meet your haberdasher.

            Do not comment out of ignorance on a topic you know little to nothing about and have not studied on any level. Study for a few years and learn how things work and how situations play out. Conduct a few interviews with people, watch at least 100 documentaries, ready at least a dozen books, maybe get a degree or two and then come back.

            Promoting ignorance and stupidity among the youth is not good for the youth or for the community which will have to rely on those youth.I can understand you taking this line if

            • by gmhowell (26755)

              Hoovering random scraps of psychotic ramblings into your skull does not lead to some grand insight. It just fills your head full of shit.

              • by elucido (870205)

                Hoovering random scraps of psychotic ramblings into your skull does not lead to some grand insight. It just fills your head full of shit.

                Nice try. If you had an argument you would have stated a case.

    • Anyone who isn't prepared to go to prison or get killed should immediately distance themselves from this situation because the stakes are too high. You may disagree with your government, you may agree with the values of Julian Assange, but it does not mean it is going to be wise for you or your family to get involved in the situation.

      I'm a real US American. Give me Liberty or Give me Death. I believe in the Declaration of Independence as much as the Constitution.

      That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

      You speak of not knowing history, when history tell us exactly how we should handle such situations. Not buckling in Fear of Terrorists, be they foreign or domestic. Read the list of abuses towards the end of the US Declaration of Independence. Those are things that should not be stood for and a Revolution fought if they can not be resolved. Many of the abuses bear striki

      • by elucido (870205)

        US American. Give me Liberty or Give me Death. I believe in the Declaration of Independence as much as the Constitution.

        Respectfully, So do I.

        That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

        And that is why we have a Democracy, with elections, and the ability to vote. We have a legal traditional method of conducting political warfare to overthrow the old regime and replace it with a new regime. We do this every 4 years through the election process. In 4 years we will have a chance to overthrow the current regime and replace it again with a new regime. Doing it in this traditional manner is a lot less violent than a Civil War and it maintains stability so foreign powers can

        • Are you serious or just trololo'ing along comment after comment.

          A revolution is every 4 years with our "election??" Our revolutionary process is elections?? You've got to be kidding me. There are two choices, and oddly, no matter who you choose, they seem to do the same dumb things that no one approves of, regardless of party. A revolution, my friend, would be removal of the cancer as whole, not injections of new incompetence.

          You know, maybe our government wouldn't be so upset about leaks that were so

          • by elucido (870205)

            Are you serious or just trololo'ing along comment after comment.

            A revolution is every 4 years with our "election??" Our revolutionary process is elections?? You've got to be kidding me.

            I'm absolutely serious. If you want a revolution/regime change then the way to do it is vote. We have a Democracy for a reason and it's to have bloodless revolution. If we didn't have democracy then I would see all this talk of revolution as having some merit but you can vote and your votes count. If you don't like the people in charge you can change them. Stop trying to promote violence!

            There are two choices, and oddly, no matter who you choose, they seem to do the same dumb things that no one approves of, regardless of party.

            The overall community approves of it or it wouldn't be happening. We have a democracy. If you don't agree then perhaps yo

            • "A government cannot be transparent and function as a war machine."

              I agree with you completely here. However, at what point should we consider perhaps the role of government is not to be a "war machine" as aggressive and oppressive as that sounds. Maybe it's time we stopped being a war machine and just worried about defending ourselves.

              Interesting how you say there may have been in an investigation... which could have been interrupted... but we would never know either if they even cared enough to do an

  • So if I tell you that at

    GREYHOUND BUS STATION LOCKER 36 COMBO X,Y,Z

    I'm now "trafficking" in whatever is in that locker? Further if the materials in that locker are stolen I'm "trafficking in stolen goods"? If they are unlawful drugs I'm "trafficking in narcotics"? If there are firearms am I "part of a terrorist act"? ...or did I just share a link.

    I hope the courts see through this subterfuge and reject that "posting a link" is equivalent to "trafficing in" whatever that link points to.

    Ehud

    • That depends on whether they can prove you had knowledge of illegal contents inside the locker prior to passing on the address.

      If the accused chap knew what the link pointed to and was passing it on in order to disseminate the stolen credit card information, then he should get into the same trouble that he would get into if he had printed copies of the stolen card information and was handing it around in the streets.

      • No, it doesn't. US law doesn't hold me responsible for telling you where a treasure is buried.-- even if I buried it myself.

        If YOU seek it, get it, move it, sell it, etc, that's YOUR problem.

        E

        • No, it doesn't. US law doesn't hold me responsible for telling you where a treasure is buried.-- even if I buried it myself. If YOU seek it, get it, move it, sell it, etc, that's YOUR problem. E

          But a page of credit card details isn't legal treasure is it? If someone came down the street, gave you a tube and told you to bury it, and you looked inside to find the original Mona Lisa and you buried it and told someone where to find it, then you are responsible for trafficking in stolen goods.

          • by gavron (1300111)

            To work with your analogy, someone gave me a tube. I did not "open it and look inside" (aka use the credit card info or verify it).
            I put the tube in a marked location and told the world where the tube is.

            Now to complete the analogy, inside the tube is NOT the Mona Lisa... because if the painting of the Mona Lisa is in the buried tube, it's not on display at the Louvre in Parise. So instead, what's in the tube isn't the Mona Lisa itself, but rather "directions and instructions to bypass the Louvre security

            • What you dont get is that once a crime has been committed, all those LEGAL things come under great scrutiny, and they will attempt to burn you at every stage. Once an illegal act has been exposed, the entire chain of events becomes suspect.
    • Yes (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770)

      If you point me towards a locker full of drugs, then ya you can get charged. You can't get out of trouble just by claiming you didn't actually do anything, only provided information. If it is clear you are an accomplice, you can get charged.

      Remember laws are written around the "reasonable person" standard, not the "overly pedantic geek" standard. So if you knew to point me to a particular locker, and you knew the combination to that locker, and that locker was full of drugs, what is a reasonable person to a

      • But it's interesting how only some laws use the 'reasonable person' standard.
        Most reasonable people would consider what lobbyists do bribery and what the finance industry does to be fraud. But there laws use the 'overly pedantic lawyer' standard - if it's not spelled out (in triplicate) that something is a crime, then it's perfectly legal to do it.

  • I'm having trouble following the summary here, are they just saying that he posted a link to some site in the #ProjectPM channel? What is this transfer business?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09, 2012 @07:39AM (#42232559)

    Seeing as so many people are dumbfounded that it can be considered at all wrong and indictable for him to do such a thing lets consider the following:

    A person knows of a quantity of drugs out in the open with no owner. He goes to a group of kids and says "Hey come with me I'll show you where a bunch of drugs are". Has he done anything wrong? Is he responsible in any way?

    Now lets assume that he knew those kids were actively seeking drugs. Has he done anything wrong now? Is he responsible?

    Now lets assume one of the kids dies from an O.D. Anything wrong now? Is he responsible now?

    Finally, is it really as black and white as a lot of users here want to make it?

    • by gl4ss (559668)

      Seeing as so many people are dumbfounded that it can be considered at all wrong and indictable for him to do such a thing lets consider the following:

      A person knows of a quantity of drugs out in the open with no owner. He goes to a group of kids and says "Hey come with me I'll show you where a bunch of drugs are". Has he done anything wrong? Is he responsible in any way?

      Now lets assume that he knew those kids were actively seeking drugs. Has he done anything wrong now? Is he responsible?

      Now lets assume one of the kids dies from an O.D. Anything wrong now? Is he responsible now?

      Finally, is it really as black and white as a lot of users here want to make it?

      well, if he read about the drug stash on the morning newspaper and was ranting about it in the cafeteria..

    • It really depends on if the person is an adult or has some power or influence over the children. Adulthood, by its nature has power over children, so in that case, guilty. If you coerce the children with threat or violence, guilty. If you exert power in any way (even passively by virtue of being an adult instructing a child), guilty. If it was a minor casually mentioning it to another minor, not guilty. If it was a minor forcing it, guilty.
  • we are hearing about all these people that have been found guilty....but we never heard of then when they were supposedly caught. So this brings up the question as to how much of this is just FUD to try and decrease the leaking.

    The Occupy Movement knew not to have a "leader" as they knew such a person would become a target, a single point to kill a whole lot more, as has been efforted towards Wikileaks.

    Now to recognize the Occupy movements intelligence on this matter, and he verifiability of such a tactic a

  • This only leads to the future cases where clicking on a link... potentially... may be a crime. Will there be a movie about it? Something dealing with the ideas and maybe call them "Pre-link". Sounds along the lines something Cruise would play a part in. "He's about to click a link, quit.. gettem!!!" :-|
  • If it's true, then he's harmful to people, anyone with a brain will damn him as such, and all parties will move on. If it's false, I hope the charges are thrown out swiftly. But if he actually did this, he is too dumb for the spokesperson job.

I cannot draw a cart, nor eat dried oats; If it be man's work I will do it.

Working...