Not long after my last post about how the FBI nabbed "Sabu" who was really Hector Monsegur, reputedly the leader of the hacker group LulzSec, SC magazine posted a fascinating piece about Sabu's activities while he was cooperating with the FBI.
It sure appears, based on what the article relates, that the FBI was pretty much using Sabu to foment hacks among others so that it could gather evidence against other hackers. Internet activist and Anonymous observer Gregg Housh concluded that a lot of hacks might not have happened without the encouragement of Sabu, including the Stratfor hack. Sabu (and therefore his "friends" in the FBI) not only knew the hack was coming but volunteered the use of a server to store the stolen data.
Housch said "The FBI pretty much left Stratfor out to dry - they screwed Strator knowingly. That pretty much blows my mind." Mine too. Aren't we supposed to be the good guys? If what is alleged in the article is true, I hope Stratfor is consulting with its attorneys.
Based on the facts recited in the article, some of the busted hackers may well have a decent entrapment argument. Sabu giving away stolen credentials to a Brazilian government website to another hacker? How is that not entrapment? He facilitated the hack while under the FBI's supervision. Juries and judges notoriously don't like informants to take pivotal actions in the commission of crimes by others.
And I'm wondering who the heck was in charge of the Sabu operation that allowed all these hacks to continue even when he wasn't directly inciting them. Aren't there rules about that for our g-men?
E-mail: email@example.com Phone: 703-359-0700