Indicted Anonymous ally: I was really an "undercover" reporter

Earlier this week, the US Justice Department indicted Matthew Keys, claiming that he helped members of the Anonymous hacker group to deface the Los Angeles Times website. Now the attorney for Keys, who currently works at Reuters as a deputy social media editor, claims that his client was working as a journalist and not as a hacker.

The Huffington Post reports quotes attorney Jay Leiderman as saying:

This is sort of an undercover-type, investigative journalism thing, and I know undercover -- I’m using that term loosely ... This is a guy who went where he needed to go to get the story. He went into the sort of dark corners of the Internet. He’s being prosecuted for that, for going to get the story.

The Justice Department, however, says that Keys was in fact acting as a disgruntled ex-employee of KTXL FOX 40 in Sacramento, California. He was fired as a web producer for that TV station in October 2010. The Justice Department claims that Keys changed the passwords to the station's Twitter and Facebook accounts and deleted 6,000 of the station's Twitter followers after he was fired.

The Justice Department claims a few months later Keys gave members of Anonymous passwords that belonged to the TV station's parent, the Tribune Company, so they could access the web site of the Los Angeles Times. Meantime, Reuters has suspended Keys from his current job but with pay.

Source: Huffington Post
Rob Kints /

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft to open even more specialty retail stores in US

Next Story

Did China's state run TV network pay people to slam Apple?


Commenting is disabled on this article.

The main enemy of hackers are rats, damn rats.
So, he will be free, not because he was a journalist, but because he will talk like a traitor.

Anonymous isn't exactly what people think they are or are portrayed to be. Hacking aside Anonymous have some very valid points of view when it comes to human and civil rights, our freedom and our liberties.

About 3% of those who call themselves "Anonymous" do. The rest are script kiddies and people who pretend to want anarchy - just out to cause grief!

nik louch said,
About 3% of those who call themselves "Anonymous" do. The rest are script kiddies and people who pretend to want anarchy - just out to cause grief!

Unfortunally it is, It started out great and I hoped it would become something for the greater good. But it hasn't. It does more damage then good.

What a crock. Even if he was doing "investigative journalism", he still broke the law. He could have done all his "undercover reporting" and still stopped short of hacking the site.

Even his damn lawyer can't convincingly state his excuse. When you've got to put "I'm using that term loosely" into an alibi, you're hosed.

He claims he never gave the information, and the only witness against him lied to reduce his 125 year computer hacking sentence down by trying to shift the blame to him. He also indicates the government is using this as an excuse to send a message against journalist.

To be honest, I don't know who's guilty or innocent myself. I just hope the legitimately guilt party is punished.

Interesting, and I agree, hopefully the real guilty party will get what's coming to them.

On a related side note, is the maximum sentence really 125 YEARS???? If so, this computer hacking stuff is getting out of hand. The guy might as well just kill the prosecutor and get his sentence reduced!