FBI Arrest Alleged LulzSec Member for Sony Pictures Hack

September 23, 2011 -

The FBI announced that it has arrested a member of LulzSec for his part in a series of computer attacks against "the computer systems of Sony Pictures Entertainment." LulzSec also hacked a number of online games including EVE-Online, and The Escapist, but the FBI only mentioned its most notorious security breach.. The announcement was made jointly by André Birotte Jr., the United States Attorney in Los Angeles; and Steven Martinez, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office.

Cody Kretsinger, 23, of Phoenix, Arizona, was arrested this morning by FBI agents after a federal grand jury returned an sealed indictment filed in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on September 2. The indictment charged Kretsinger with "conspiracy" and the "unauthorized impairment of a protected computer." The federal indictment was unsealed this morning upon Kretsinger’s arrest.

The FBI alleges that, from May 27 - June 2 of this year, Kretsinger (AKA recursion) was involved in hacking the computer systems of Sony Pictures Entertainment as part of the group known as Lulz Security.

The FBI adds that the "extent of damage caused by the compromise at Sony Pictures is under investigation."

You can read the announcement here.

 


Comments

Re: FBI Arrest Alleged LulzSec Member for Sony Pictures Hack

I love how in every single story where someone is accused of something (but even more so when it's an Anon or Lulz story), everyone just plain assumes guiltiness of the full charges, if not more. Gotta love that presumption of innocence (because, you know, some innocent people had their lives ruined in the public eye just because they kept being accused, even though they managed to clear all charges...)

Re: FBI Arrest Alleged LulzSec Member for Sony Pictures Hack

I wouldn't say everyone, but yeah that is a common problem in stories about people being arrested for crimes, especially if its something horrific.   The Court of Public Opinion loves to issue a full conviction without the facts in front of them.  

Re: FBI Arrest Alleged LulzSec Member for Sony Pictures Hack

Then let them think that. You're saying that people don't have the right to form their own opinions?

There's just as much chance of guilt as there is of innocence. I'm not going to tell you that you can't believe he's innocent. But it's foolhardy to think that you can tell me that I can't believe he's guilty, either.

Re: FBI Arrest Alleged LulzSec Member for Sony Pictures Hack

"Then let them think that. You're saying that people don't have the right to form their own opinions?"

And on what do you base your opinion? No facts were given because a) there wasn't a trial and b) the concerned parties have not disclosed anything (which, btw, would not automatically be a fact, no matter which side says it.)

"There's just as much chance of guilt as there is of innocence."

Ah, so you're another one of those person that believes that odds = (selection)/(number of choices)? First off, no, not all odds are equivalent. Second, if we assumed that the authorities picked someone at random just to make an example for an actual crime (which I am not saying, btw, I give them a lot more credibility than that, but still, it'll illustrate my example properly.) Then the odds of them catching by pure luck the right person would be (number of guilty parties)/(people who could be selected by the authorities) (let's say anyone with an internet connection, in age 10+, from the right country, just to keep it simple). Can you see just how unequal the odds are? And this is part of the reason we have something called "presumption of innocence". The other part of that being that we're usually better off letting a criminal go than jail or execute an innocent (if you do not agree to that, I'll gladly volunteer you or the person you love the most to be said innocent.)

"I'm not going to tell you that you can't believe he's innocent."

Good, since beyond the fact I didn't say to anyone what to think, but rather how atrocious it was of thinking one way, you'd also would have to argument your way out of everything I said above with proper, convincing arguments. And since this has been a hot subject of debate by some of the most brilliant minds, either scholars of law or philosophers, and that up to now, this has been the dominating consensus by an incredibly wide majority, I doubt you'd be able to single-handedly add much that hadn't been considered before.

"But it's foolhardy to think that you can tell me that I can't believe he's guilty, either."

You can believe horse poop lollipops for all I care. I still wouldn't recommend you eating it nor would I want you in charge of deciding where said poop goes. The same applies here. Be close-minded as much as you want, but please have the minimum amount of decency of disqualifying yourself from any jury duty...

Re: FBI Arrest Alleged LulzSec Member for Sony Pictures Hack

So pretty much what you just said is that I have no right to believe guilt, because there are no facts. I personally never said whether I believe he's innocent or guilty. Although you automatically assume I think he's guilty simply because I'm running an argument counter to yours?

The whole "You're wrong, therefore I must be right" logic. Classic. 

You're basically saying that we have to assume he's innocent based on the fact that there are no facts. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The LAW has to assume innocence until guilt is proven, not the public.

If I WERE on the jury, it wouldn't be my place to assume anything until all evidence had been presented, which presents a totally different scenario. But as I've told you countless times in the past, we are not in a courthouse, but a public forum where anyone may post their opinions. We don't get to say whether he's guilty or not, but we can say whether we think he's guilty or not.

We have the right to assume guilt or innocence based on our own thought processes, because we're not on the jury, and we have no bearing on his fate.

And the reason I say there's just as much chance of guilt as there is of innocence is because you're right, there are no facts. Nothing to sway one way or the other. So if people want to see the glass half-empty and assume guilt, let them. Because again, 'presumption of innocence' applies to the law, not the public. If the public got to decide guilt or innocence, then the Casey Anthony trial would have gone COMPLETELY different.

Re: FBI Arrest Alleged LulzSec Member for Sony Pictures Hack

I wonder if this means that soon, we'll be hearing about a lot of LulzSec members being arrested.

-----------------------------------------

Managing Editor at TheBestGameSiteEver.com

Re: FBI Arrest Alleged LulzSec Member for Sony Pictures Hack

Given the rather poor reporting as of late whenever governments arrest 'hackers', I wonder if this person actually did much of anything or if it was just a defacement....

Re: FBI Arrest Alleged LulzSec Member for Sony Pictures Hack

They'll always have the lulz memories I suppose, because they won't be doing much else for a while.

-Austin from Oregon

Feel free to check out my blog.

Re: FBI Arrest Alleged LulzSec Member for Sony Pictures Hack

"But officer! We did it for the good of America!!!"

I hope they catch the rest of them and put them in a cell together.

 

Re: FBI Arrest Alleged LulzSec Member for Sony Pictures Hack

How's the 'lulz' now, dumbass?

Re: FBI Arrest Alleged LulzSec Member for Sony Pictures Hack

That party wagon is filling up quite nicely.

Re: FBI Arrest Alleged LulzSec Member for Sony Pictures Hack

The party cell, maybe.  Let them rot in there.

"Go ahead and hate your neighbor, go ahead and cheat a friend. Do it in the name of Heaven, Jack Thompson'll justify it in the end." - nightwng2000
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MattsworknameWilson: how? Im still waiting for my upgrade notice07/29/2015 - 3:44am
Matthew WilsonI updated to a clean instill of windows 10.07/29/2015 - 2:36am
Mattsworknameargue that it's wrong, but then please admit it's wrong on ALL Fronts07/29/2015 - 2:06am
MattsworknameTechnoGeek: It's actually NOT, but it is a method used all across the specturm. See Rush limbaugh, MSNBC, Shawn hannity, etc etc, how many compagns have been brought up to try and shut them down by going after there advertisers. It's fine if you wanna07/29/2015 - 2:05am
Mattsworknamediscussed, while not what I liked and not the methods I wanted to see used, were , in a sense, the effort of thsoe game consuming masses to hold what they felt was supposed to be there press accountable for what many of them felt was Betrayal07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAs we say, the gamers are dead article set of a firestorm among the game consuming populace, who, ideally, were the intended audiance for sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Et all. As such, the turn about on them and the attacking of them, via the metods07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAndrew: Thats kind fo the issue at hand, Accountable is a matter of context. For a media group, it means accountable to its reader. to a goverment, to it's voters and tax payer, to a company, to it's share holders.07/29/2015 - 2:02am
Andrew EisenAnd again, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published?07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - I disagree with your 9:12 and 9:16 comment. There are myriad ways to address content you don't like. And they're far easier to execute in the online space.07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - Banning in the legal sense? Not that I'm aware but there have certainly been groups of gamers who have worked towards getting content they don't like removed.07/28/2015 - 11:45pm
DanJAlexander's editorial was and continues to be grossly misrepresented by her opponents. And if you don't like a site, you stop reading it - same as not watching a tv show. They get your first click, but not your second.07/28/2015 - 11:40pm
TechnogeekYes, because actively trying to convince advertisers to influence the editorial content of media is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, especially for a movement that's ostensibly about journalistic ethics.07/28/2015 - 11:02pm
Mattsworknameanother07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
Mattsworknameyou HAVE TO click on it. So they get the click revenue weather you like what it says or not. as such, the targeting of advertisers most likely seemed like a good course of action to those who wanted to hold those media groups accountable for one reason07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
MattsworknameBut, when you look at online media, it's completely different, with far more options, but far few ways to address issues that the consumers may have. In tv, you don't like what they show, you don't watch. But in order to see if you like something online07/28/2015 - 9:12pm
MattsworknameIn tv, and radio, ratings are how it works. your ratings determine how well you do and how much money you an charge.07/28/2015 - 9:02pm
Mattsworknameexpect to do so without someone wanting to hold you to task for it07/28/2015 - 9:00pm
MattsworknameMecha: I don't think anyone was asking for Editoral changes, what they wanted was to show those media groups that if they were gonna bash there own audiance, the audiance was not gonna take it sitting down. you can write what you want, but you can't07/28/2015 - 8:56pm
MattsworknameAndrew, Im asking as a practical question, Have gamers, as a group, ever asked for a game, or other item, to be banned. Im trying to see if theres any cases anyone else remembers cause I cant find or remember any.07/28/2015 - 8:55pm
Andrew EisenAs mentioned, Gamasutra isn't a gaming site, it's a game industry site. I don't feel it's changed its focus at all. Also, I don't get the sense that the majority of the people who took issue with that one opinion piece were regular readers anyway.07/28/2015 - 8:43pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician