’Tis the Season for Data Breaches, Identity Theft

Some Things Better Left Unshared: Social Media and Medical Identity Theft

Government backs off case against journalist who faced decades in prison for posting hyperlink

By Adi Robertson on March 5, 2014 01:05 pm Email @thedextriarchy

The US government has filed a motion to dismiss several charges against journalist Barrett Brown, who was indicted in 2012 for posting a link to leaked documents among other alleged offenses. Today's motion would dismiss eleven identity theft-related charges that stem from Brown's role in a 2011 hack of intelligence company Stratfor. Brown, who worked closely with Anonymous-affiliated hackers, dropped a hyperlink to leaked Stratfor files in an IRC channel. The linked file contained a partial archive of Stratfor's customer database and included credit card information. This led the government to charge Brown with transferring "authentication features" and "means of identification" by posting the hyperlink.

Brown remains charged with one count of possessing devices with unauthorized access in an attempt at fraud. He remains separately charged with three counts of threatening and attempting to spread unauthorized information about a federal agent, stemming from a series of statements on Twitter, and advocacy group Free Barrett Brown. These charges, however, are widely considered less worrying than the fact that Brown was arrested and charged for posting a hyperlink. Brown's laywers and many others argued that saying links "transferred" material posed a threat to freedom of expression, suggesting that the case was a form of retaliation in the wake of the hack. "He neither hosted the file nor was involved in the theft of the information," said defense fund founder Kevin Gallagher. "His intent was purely journalistic and not criminal."

http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5474046/us-government-files-to-dismiss-charges-against-barrett-brown

Avoid Identity Theft Tax Troubles

Constitionality of Identity Theft and Social Media Statute - THE PEOPLE of the State of Illinois v. Claudia MADRIGAL

948 N.E.2d 591 (2011) 241 Ill.2d 463

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant,
v.
Claudia MADRIGAL, Appellee

Justice THOMAS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

The  case against Defendant, Claudia Madrigal consisted of one count of identity theft in violation of section 16G-15(a)(7) of the Identity Theft Law (720 ILCS 5/16G-15(a)(7) (West 2008)). Section 16G-15(a)(7) provides that "[a] person commits the offense of identity theft when he or she knowingly * * * uses any personal identification information or personal identification document of another for the purpose of gaining access to any record of the actions taken, communications made or received, or other activities or transactions of that person, without the prior express permission of that person." 720 ILCS 5/16G-15(a)(7) (West 2008). 

The Court began by addressing the constitutionality as a question of law, which this court reviewed de novo. People v. Johnson, 225 Ill.2d 573, 584, 312 Ill.Dec. 350, 870 N.E.2d 415 (2007). All statutes are presumed constitutional, and the party challenging the constitutionality of a statute has the burden of clearly establishing that it violates the constitution. People v. Carpenter, 228 Ill.2d 250, 267, 320 Ill.Dec. 888, 888 N.E.2d 105 (2008); Johnson, 225 Ill.2d at 584, 312 Ill.Dec. 350, 870 N.E.2d 415. 

Section 16G-15(a)(7) would potentially punish as a felony a wide array of wholly innocent conduct. For example, doing a computer search through Google or some other search engine or through a social networking site such as Facebook or MySpace, by entering someone's name, could uncover numerous records of actions taken, communications made or received, or other activities or transactions of that person. Thus, the statute as it currently reads would criminalize such innocuous conduct as someone using the internet to look up how their neighbor did in the Chicago Marathon. 

The Court found that the problem with section 16G-15(a)(7), then, is that it lacks a culpable mental state, as it does not require a criminal purpose for a person to be convicted of a felony.

The Court therefore affirmed the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County, which found section 16G-15(a)(7) to be unconstitutional under both the state and federal constitutions.

Chief Justice KILBRIDE and Justices FREEMAN, GARMAN, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS concurred in the judgment and opinion.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14873755653712091444&q=FACEBOOK&hl=en&as_sdt=4,14