Barrett Brown Prosecution Threatens Right to Link, Could Criminalize Routine Journalism PracticesHanni Fakhoury and Trevor Timm While one would assume linking to the list is a First Amendment-protected activitygiven the journalists had nothing to do with stealing the passwordsBarrett Brown is currently under indictment, in part, for remarkably similar behavior. And if he is convicted, it could have dire consequences for press freedom. Brown, who has written for Vanity Fair and the Guardian among other publications, started a website called Project PM in 2009, which crowdsourced public information about security contractors who worked with government agencies like the NSA. Part of what Brown and other Project PM users investigated were leaked emails from security contractors like HB Gary and Stratfor. Now, its important to note that, despite his fascination with Anonymous, Brown has never been accused of participating in any hacking. In fact, he lacks the expertise to even do so. Northwestern professor Peter Ludlow described what happened after Stratfor emails were leaked online by Anonymous: When the contents of the Stratfor leak became available, Brown decided to put ProjectPM on it. A link to the Stratfor dump appeared in an Anonymous chat channel; Brown copied it and pasted it into the private chat channel for ProjectPM, bringing the dump to the attention of the editors. The governments prosecution theory isnt limited to credit card numbers. The same theory could potentially be used against the Daily Beast or Buzzfeed journalists yesterday, or against any journalist that has linked to stolen material of a similar nature. Thats because the federal identity theft statute, 18 USC 1028, is remarkably broad. The statute criminalizes knowingly transferring an authentication feature known to be stolen or taken without lawful authority. Authentication feature means any symbol, code or sequence of numbers or letters used to authenticate a means of identification. And means of identification is defined as any name or number that may be used alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual including a unique electronic identification number, address, or routing code. The government has argued beforespecifically in its prosecution of Andrew Weev Auernheimerthat this definition covers email addresses. Under the governments theory in Barrett Browns case, all journalists (and anyone else for that matter) tweeting out the link to the list of Congressional staffer email addresses and passwords were trafficking in authentication features and are guilty of a felony. While it turns out that many of the passwords in this case may not have been accurate, this lesson holds true anytime someone links to groups of stolen passwords posted online, which seems to happen fairly frequently. And in this situation, under the Justice Departments theory, those linking to the list violated the aggravated identity theft statute too because during that crime, they knowingly transferred without lawful authority, a means of identification of another personthe email addresses. These are serious charges; aggravated identity theft alone carries a mandatory two-year prison sentence that must run consecutively to any other sentence imposed. It bears repeating: the government does not allege Brown participated in the hacking of Stratfor at all. Here, Brown didnt even publish anything, he merely directed other people to where information was already published via a standard hyperlink. The right of journalistsor anyone for that matterto link to already-public information, including sensitive information, is in serious jeopardy if Brown is convicted. Well have more on the dangers of the Barrett Brown prosecution to both the press and public soon. In the meantime Browns case and the massive linking to the Congressional e-mail addresses and passwords that occurred yesterday emphasize why journalists should be worried when the right to link is threatened. linkwithin_text=Related Articles: 