A link can't contain credit card numbers or CVVs on its own. It's just a pointer to where the data resides. It's entirely possible that Brown didn't know what he was disseminating. One has to download and open the file to find out. The government is expecting us to know what's in a link before we share it, which is an unreasonable burden. And they're equating transmitting the link with possessing the underlying information. Moreover they haven't shown any illicit transactions resulting from it being shared.
How can reporters verify sources or security researchers examine data dumps without fear of being prosecuted now?
This is a chilling attack on digital rights and needs to be stopped. I hope the judge listens. Stratfor was sued because they failed to sufficiently protect their systems and rightfully so. The actual hacker Jeremy Hammond got less time than this guy faces.
Even worse, link's destinations are outside your control. The funny picture can be replaced with anything by the person in control of it. I have goatsed many people when someone embedded an image from my server. In that case it was visible. Changing what a page linked-to.shows is much more hidden.
How can reporters verify sources or security researchers examine data dumps without fear of being prosecuted now?
This is a chilling attack on digital rights and needs to be stopped. I hope the judge listens. Stratfor was sued because they failed to sufficiently protect their systems and rightfully so. The actual hacker Jeremy Hammond got less time than this guy faces.