Reuters employee charged with aiding Anonymous in website defacement

Matthew Keys, 26, a social media editor for Reuters, has been indicted on charges that he helped members of Anonymous hack the Tribune Co. network in order to deface the Los Angeles Times website.

"The editor was outed by the prominent former member of Anonymous known as Sabu who became a snitch for the FBI following his own arrest last year," reports Kim Zetter at Wired News. Here is the indictment (PDF).

Reuters has an account here.

The incident is alleged to have taken place before Keys was employed by Thomson Reuters Corp.

The EFF's Trevor Timm tweets: "Up to 30 year jail sentence for *allegedly* helping deface a website for a half hour. Yeah, that seems totally fair. Anyone horrified by the amount of jail time @theMatthewKeys faces can go here to tell Congress we need Computer Fraud and Abuse Act reform."


  1. Being a taliban cannibal meth cook would get you less time. Fuck the US legal system is a joke.

  2. When is someone going to start informing on the “Justice System” in America?  They seem to be bigger criminals than those they pursue.

  3. The way this is worded makes it sound like “helping members of Anonymous” is now officially a crime. (As opposed to being charged with something else, in relation to helping members of Anonymous.)

    1. Worse – it sounds like “allegedly” helping is a crime.  Is there any evidence against this guy besides a denunciation by another guy who’s in custody?

  4. I’m hoping that Sabu still gets at least 25 years in prison even after ratting out every person that ever had any dealings with him ever.  He turned snitch so quickly it is ridiculous. 

  5. Sentiments like “snitch” and “rat out” carry with them a horrible history and connotation. (See, e.g.,’

    I hate to see them used by people interested in honest justice.  

  6. Article 3 of the constitution – guarantees trial by jury
    Eighth Amendment – forbids cruel & unusual punishment

    If you are accused of committing a crime related to computers, you get to pick which of those two you’d like.

  7.  It’s worth noting that just because someone is “facing” umpteen gazillion years in prison, it’s very unlikely they’re going to get sentenced to the maximum, especially if it’s a first offence. Federal sentencing guidelines (good introduction at wikipedia: ) will generally govern the amount of jail time, and one of the primary modifiers is the defendant’s criminal history. Other variables deal with the severity of the crime, the calculated loss to Reuters, the defendant’s involvement in the actual carrying out of the hack, etc. If he pleads, that’ll shave more off it.

  8. You guys aren’t getting it. Just being publicly accused carries horrible penalties. Now people will distrust this guy the rest of his life, wondering if he really did it. The criminal attorney will cost him tens of thousands of dollars. The angst and worry of spending the next 30 years in prison will be incredibly stressful.

    We need a simple law for federal prosecutors: if you indict and your facts are obviously wrong (such as indicting someone for providing access that they couldn’t have provided), you go to federal prison for life, without the possibility of parole.

    I imagine they would think twice before inventing cases.

Comments are closed.