Barrett Brown Gets 63 Months in Jail, Nearly a Million Fine

'Anonymous'-linked journalist convicted for issues arising from an FBI investigation into non-crimes.


Journalist Barrett Brown, after already serving 31 months in jail, was today sentenced to 63 months total, and a $890,000 fine, which of course no normal human could ever pay off. The Guardian reports on the background:

In September 2012, Brown was arrested by the FBI for allegedly threatening a federal agent in a video posted to YouTube [after the FBI had raided his home and searched his computers, for reasons detailed below]. In October 2012, after being held for two weeks without charge, he was indicted on charges of making an online threat, retaliating against a federal officer and conspiring to release personal information about a government employee.

Two months later, he was indicted on 12 further charges related to the hacking of private intelligence contractor Stratfor in 2011.

Jeremy Hammond, the hacker who actually carried out the Stratfor breach, was sentenced to the maximum possible 10 years. Writing for the Guardian from prison in December, Hammond bemoaned that Brown "continues to await his sentencing for merely linking to hacked material".

Brown, who was accused of sharing a link to the data Hammond obtained from the breach (as well as several further indictments related to withholding or hiding evidence and obstructing the FBI), at one point faced a possible sentence of 105 years.

He will reportedly be eligible for supervised release after one year, and once released will have his computer equipment monitored. The $890,250 in restitution payments will go to Stratfor and other companies targeted by Anonymous. He will pay $225 in fines….

I blogged about Brown's case back in June 2013. Excerpts:

To simplify a pretty complicated story, Brown dumped the contents of an Anonymous-released dump of documents grabbed from Stratfor, a private intelligence/security company into a public wiki dedicated to investigative journalism he ran called ProjectPM, and began looking into a mysterious company called "Endgame Systems," an info-security firm with multi-million dollar yearly subscriptions services supposedly involving giving away info on how to exploit systems vulnerabilities in computers.

The FBI got a warrant for his laptop, raided his mother's house, and later tried to subpoena data on everyone who had accessed Brown's journalism site Project PM. An angry Brown released an ill-advised video threatening harrassment of an FBI agent and his family, and the arrest and indictment followed.

Scott Shackford wrote in March about the feds dropping many of the charges against Brown while he still languished behind bars, including the ones for essentially hyperlinking to hacked documents. (Many links on the charge-dropping.)

Shackford notes something interesting about the charges that remained, for which Brown was sentenced today after pleading guilty to three of them: "of the charges that remain, all but one are an outcome of the FBI targeting him for something they now acknowledge is not a criminal act." That is, they can come after you for no particular good reason and if you don't cooperate to their satisfaction, you are a criminal, and if they drive you to say publicly you might want revenge for them wronging you, you are again a criminal.

Brown made an interesting statement before being sentenced, in which he expressed both some regret and some defiance. He said he regretted threatening an FBI agent on tape, and trying to hide some laptops from them.

But he went on to excoriate the government's case and how they pursued it. Excerpts:

…..there is also the matter of the dozens of people around the world who have contributed to my distributed think tank, Project PM, by writing for our public website, Incredibly, the government has declared these contributors — some of them journalists — to be criminals, and participants in a criminal conspiracy. As such, the government sought from this court a subpoena by which to obtain the identities of all of our contributors. Your Honor denied that motion and I am very grateful to Your Honor for having done so. Unfortunately the government thereafter went around Your Honor and sought to obtain these records by other means. So now the dozens of people who have given their time and expertise to what has been hailed by journalists and advocacy groups as a crucial journalistic enterprise are now at risk of being indicted under the same sort of spurious charges that I was facing not long ago, when the government exposed me to decades of prison time for copying and pasting a link to a publicly available file that other journalists were also linking to without being prosecuted….

Brown also accused agents of lying in the service of keeping him in jail:

At the September 13th bond hearing, held in Magistrate Judge Stickney's court the day after my arrest, Special Agent Allyn Lynd took the stand and claimed under oath that in reviewing my laptops he had found discussions in which I admit having engaged in, quote, "SWATting", unquote, which he referred to as, quote, "violent activity", unquote. Your Honor may not be familiar with the term SWATting; as Mr. Lynd described it at the hearing it is, quote, "where they try to place a false 911 call to the residence of an individual in order to endanger that individual." He went on at elaborate length about this, presenting it as a key reason why I should not receive bond. Your Honor will have noted that this has never come up again. This is because Mr. Lynd's claims were entirely untrue…..

In what Brown thinks is a particularly bizarre and dangerous move:

… response to our motion to dismiss the charges of obstruction of justice based on the hiding of my laptops, the government claimed that those laptops contained evidence of a plot I orchestrated to attack the Kingdom of Bahrain on the orders of Amber Lyon. Your Honor, Amber Lyon is a journalist and former CNN reporter, who I do know and respect, but I can assure Your Honor that I am not in the habit of attacking Gulf state monarchies on her behalf. But I think it's unjust of them to use this court to throw out that sort of claim about Miss Lyon in a public filing as they did if they're not prepared to back it up. And they're not prepared to back it up. But that won't stop the Kingdom of Bahrain from repeating this groundless assertion and perhaps even using it to keep Miss Lyon out of the country — because she has indeed reported on the Bahraini monarchy's violent crackdowns on pro-democracy protests in that country, and she has done so from that country. And if she ever returns to that country to continue that important work, she'll now be subject to arrest on the grounds that the United States Department of Justice itself has explicitly accused her of orchestrating an attack on that country's government.

Brown notes that the government's power to decide who is and isn't a journalist is inherently subject to abuse, and mocks their shifting standards for when to credit someone's denial of being something, making much of the fact that he once expressed contempt for the profession and denied being a journalist, he said in the same colloquial sense a politician might deny being a politician.

In the September 13th criminal complaint filed against me, the FBI itself acknowledges that I do not claim any official role within Anonymous. Likewise, in last month's hearing, the prosecutor accidentally slipped and referred to me as a journalist, even after having previously found it necessary to deny me that title. But, there you have it. Deny being a spokesperson for Anonymous hundreds of times, and you're still a spokesperson for Anonymous. Deny being a journalist once or twice, and you're not a journalist. What conclusion can one draw from this sort of reasoning other than that you are whatever the FBI finds it convenient for you to be at any given moment. This is not the "rule of law", Your Honor, it is the "rule of law enforcement", and it is very dangerous.

A Reason TV interview from last April with Kevin Gallagher of the group Free Barrett Brown:

NEXT: Lenore Skenazy's New Show Brings Free-Range Parenting to Your TV Screen

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. In October 2012, after being held for two weeks without charge,

    How is that even possible? I thought there was a limit (72 hours?).

    1. What is your remedy? It is blatantly illegal. But the only remedy is a judge throwing out the charges or winning a law suit. yeah, either on of those two things are going to happen.

      1. It always comes back to that, doesn’t it? There’s no real remedy for government abuses of the “justice” system.

        1. To separate the justice system from the government for starters.

    2. That limit isn’t really there. There are so many details and legal ways around things that nobody worries about “72 hours” I have personally been locked up without charges for eight days on a 72hr hold. I didn’t get to speak to an attorney for four of those days. I never plea bargained and i was never convicted or charged with anything. It’s just the way things are for everybody.

  2. And this sort of thing happens all of the time. This is what happened to Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby. In both cases they were convicted of “lying to investigators” about a crime they didn’t commit. It is appalling.

    Up until just recently the FBI refused to record any interaction with them. Unless there is a recording, the have the ability to convict anyone they talk to of lying to them. They just have to tell the court you lied. It will be your word against theirs and they will win every time.

    The FBI and DOJ are evil. They just are. And few people seem to understand that or care.

    1. You want to get really pissed off? Go listen to this:…..nt-justice

      Fed prosecutor basically says the high profile financial prosecutions in the early ’90s (think Enron) were government scams.

      There’s a lot of federal prosecutors who need to be shit-canned (at the least).

    2. Institutions funded by extortion and theft tend to act evil.

  3. And it sucks that guy Obama never got in office. I am sure he would be commuting this sentence if he had. All of my liberal friends were just sure he would put a stop to this kind of thing.

  4. And all of this over Stratfor…a company that is to government contractors what Upworthy is to journalism. 🙂

    1. Apparently someone important had something to hide and was making some money off of it.

      And yeah, I have never read a damned thin on that site above the level of a few military guys bullshiting over a beer. What a fucking a joke that place.

      1. They have nothing to hide. Stratfor basically charges (charged?) $40K a year for a subscription to their “intelligence” to get information you can pull from a Google search. Stratfor is like the kid at a roadside stand selling lemonade for $200 a glass…all he needs is the one customer.

        Actually, I take that back. Stratfor did have one thing to hide…the client list that they took great pains to tell everyone Wikileaks didn’t have. They didn’t want everyone to know just how few people are on it. 🙂

  5. I’m not familiar enough with the case to have a reasonable opinion about this but it sounds like the guy was a dumbass at the very least. I’m not sure if being a dumbass qualifies for jail time but he certainly wasn’t acting in his own best interest.

    As far as linking to hacked material is concerned, I get the desire to keep everything legal but I know it would piss me off to no end if a hacker grabbed my credit card data, uploaded it to a site and then a journalist linked to it. Surely there is some law to protect me in such a situation?

    1. Has “dumbass” always been grounds for harsh legal sentencing? Or is it a more recent development in our evolution?

      1. No, probably not. Then again, you could argue Al Capone’s tax evasion sentence was harsh for the crime he was convicted of, too. You just wouldn’t get many takers.

        This guy is a dirtbag. While it might be argued that the sentence was harsh for the specific crime, in a karmic sense justice was served and served very well.

        1. Fortunately the legal system isn’t based on “karmic justice”.

          Bragging about sending Al Capone to prison for tax evasion is repulsive. Either nail him on murder charges or let the fucker go. Alternatively, they could actually built a case against him for tax evasion and sentenced him for tax evasion. Not this weird bullshit of convicting someone for one crime and then sentencing him/her for another. That way lies evil.

          1. Fortunately the legal system isn’t based on “karmic justice”.

            You fail to notice that in practice it frequently is: police, prosecutors, juries, and the voting public like it that way.

            Perhaps you think the word “is” doesn’t mean what it means.

    2. I have no comments about the charges he was convicted on, but I remember him trolling a few sites “back in the day”- he’s an annoying little shitbag.

  6. Brutal treatment. That’s sure to put a cap on the Anonymous hacktivism! Not.

  7. I recently watched some videos about Richard Jewell, the security guard that saved a lot of lives during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics but got railroaded by the FBI and MSM for several months. Kudos to the DOJ attorney that recognized that a letter on letterhead was needed to clear him.

    1. That one is still memorable. Messed that fella’s life up over nothing. If the MSM was capable of anything even remotely resembling a conscience it would suffer a lot of troubles sleeping and looking in the mirror.

  8. Evelyn . I can see what your saying… Phillip `s comment is exceptional… last thursday I bought themselves a Porsche 911 after having made $9239 this past five weeks and more than ten/k last month . it’s actualy my favourite-work I’ve ever had . I began this four months/ago and straight away was bringin in over $72 per hour . why not check here

  9. my neighbor’s ex-wife makes $62 every hour on the computer . She has been out of work for five months but last month her paycheck was $18411 just working on the computer for a few hours. try this site……..

  10. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.