FBI Arrest Alleged LulzSec Member for Sony Pictures Hack

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.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Grif says:

    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.

  2. 0
    DorthLous says:

    "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…

  3. 0
    Grif says:

    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.

  4. 0
    Algus says:

    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.  

  5. 0
    DorthLous says:

    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…)

  6. 0
    Neeneko says:

    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….

Leave a Reply