Barrett Brown

Barrett Brown, a hacktivist, journalist and writer, was sentenced to 63 months in federal prison, less 28 months for time served, for threatening an FBI agent, for being an accessory after the fact in the unauthorized access to protected computers owned by securities firms and interfering with a serach warrant, The Dallas Morning News' Tasha Tsiaperas reports.

At issue was whether Brown was aware that a link he shared online contained credit card information that had been hacked by others. Brown and his supporters argued that heightening his sentence for sharing the link would chill journalism and the First Amendnment. But U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay said Brown's involvement with the Anonymous hack was "'more than a mere posting of that link.”'

Brown said in a satirical statement that '“I’ll be provided with free food, clothes, and housing as I seek to expose wrongdoing by Bureau of Prisons officials and staff and otherwise report on news and culture in the world’s greatest prison system.'"

Barrett Brown, a freelance journalist who also has been portrayed as an Anonymous hacktivist, has had his sentencing delayed until January 22, The Intercept's Michelle Garcia reports.

Before taking a plea deal, Brown faced more than 100 years in prison for posting links to stolen credit-card information hacked by others from the servers of security intelligence firms HBGary and Stratfor: "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," Garcia reports.

Brown's defense attorneys objected to much of the evidence presented by prosecutors in a hearing this week, arguing it is not relevant to the charges he pled guilty to: threatening an FBI agent on a YouTube video while he was on withdrawal from Suboxone, trying to hide his laptops during the execution of a search warrant and "an offer Brown made to the hacker Jeremy Hammond, to contact Stratfor to see if the firm wanted redactions of the hacked materials." 

Most troubling, Garcia reports, prosecutors revived the claim that Brown's posting the link to the stolen credit-card information constituted complicity with the hack, even though First Amendment concerns were raised by that prosecutorial argument. Defense attorney Ahmed Ghappour told Garcia that “'looking at that as criminal conduct would probably bring an end to all digital journalism, period. There would be no reporting on leaks.”'

Barrett Brown, a journalist and hacktivist who accepted a plea deal for threatening a federal agent on a YouTube video, is going to be sentenced Tuesday. But prosecutors have asked that their recommendations, as well as the defense's about Brown's sentence be kept sealed, Russia Today reports: "According to a statement made by the Free Barrett Brown group this week, 'It seems clear that the government doesn’t want journalists to attend the upcoming hearing with an understanding of what issues are at stake, and they don’t want further attention to a case that has already proven to be an embarrassment.”' Once First Amendment concerns were raised by Brown's defense and others, the government dropped a computer fraud charge against Brown for posting online a link to credit card information hacked by others.

Barrett Brown, a journalist and activist who used crowdsourcing to investigate leaked information about private security firm Stratfor, has taken a plea deal with prosecutors, Wired reports: In a court document superseding two of Brown's previous three indictments, "the government charges Brown with two crimes: allegedly assisting the person who hacked Stratfor after the fact, and obstructing the execution of a search warrant targeting Brown. The first charge is a new one and relates to assistance Brown allegedly gave the person who hacked Stratfor 'in order to hinder and prevent ... apprehension, trial and punishment.'" Prosecutors previously dropped 11 charges against Brown in which he was charged with identity theft. Brown copied a hyperlink, connecting "to a file containing [Stratfor] data stolen in 2011," from one public chatroom and reposted it to another, Wired reports.

Even though journalist and activist Barrett Brown won't face charges of identity theft for sharing a link to hacked "records documenting improper and potentially illegal activities by the U.S. intelligence contractor, Stratfor Global Intelligence," his prosecution on other charges still threatens press freedom, the Electronic Frontier Foundation argues. Brown apparently shared the link to the Stratfor files with a team of other journalists to crowdsource the review of the records, EFF says.

Federal prosecutors may have decided to press charges against Brown because "Brown admitted to being a heroin user and threatened an FBI agent and his children in a semi-coherent video posted to YouTube. (This happened after the FBI charged Brown’s mother with obstruction of justice for failing to produce Brown’s laptop.) Brown still faces charges for this threat in a separate criminal case, as well as charges of obstruction of justice for concealing evidence. However, Brown’s arguable lapse of judgment does not excuse the government for bringing specious identity theft charges against him for the simple act of sharing a link," EFF further argues.

Brown's continued prosecution threatens press freedom because journalists may not pursue stories on government and corporate wrongdoing out of heh fear that they could be prosecuted for crimes based on newsgathering, EFF concludes.

The Dallas Morning News reports that prosecutors have moved to drop most of the charges against journalist and activist Barrett Brown related to posting stolen data online. They want to drop all but one of 12 charges "accusing him of trafficking in data, including credit card numbers, that was stolen from private intelligence firm Stratfor" by hackers, the Morning News says. "He had faced charges of aggravated identity theft and device fraud in a case that has received national attention for its free speech implications," the Morning News also says.