Fired TV web producer charged in abetting hackers group
SAN FRANCISCO — A social media editor for Reuters news service was charged on Thursday with conspiring with the group “Anonymous” to hack into Tribune Co.'s computer system shortly after he was fired from one of the company's TV stations.
Matthew Keys is charged with supplying hackers in December 2010 with the login credentials to the computer network of Tribune Co., which owns the Los Angeles Times, said the FBI.
Keys had been fired from a Tribune-owned television station in Sacramento two months earlier during the company's bankruptcy. He was not working for Reuters when he allegedly conspired with “Anonymous.”
According to the federal grand jury indictment handed down in Sacramento, a hacker altered a Times news story posted Dec. 14 and Dec. 15, 2010, to read: “Pressure builds in House to elect CHIPPY 1337,” a reference to another hacking group.
The indictment alleges that Keys, 26, and another hacker failed in another attempt to access the Tribune's computer system after the hacking of the Times. Keys acquired the login information while serving as the web producer for the Sacramento-based FOX station KTXL, which is owned by Tribune Co.
A Tribune spokesman declined comment.
From June 2008 to April 2010, Keys' Facebook page said he worked as an online news producer for the Sacramento station.
Investigators say Keys turned over the information in an online chat room frequented by hackers and members of Anonymous. Department of Justice prosecutors in court papers allege that a legendary hacker and Anonymous leader named “Sabu,” who later turned into an FBI informant, “offered advice on how to conduct the network intrusion.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Cathedral may host slave trade museum
- Study touts benefits of full-day preschool
- Immigrants warned of increase in scams
- Tough Texas gets prison results by going softer on crime
- Ferguson angles to avoid fate of riot-torn cities
- Kahlo’s workplace to be reimagined in New York Botanical Garden
- Illegals protected by Obama in line for Social Security, Medicare, other benefits
- McCarthy-era felon: Lies doomed me
- Oregon police dog fired from job
- Fissures begin to emerge among Dems
- Justices consider social media, free speech