Gonzalez Wants To Be Cleared, Hints That The Secret Service Wanted TJX Broken Into

Written by Evan Schuman
April 13th, 2011

Albert Gonzalez—the cyberthief extraordinaire who is now serving prison time after he pled guilty to breaking into the systems of TJX, Target, 7-Eleven, JCPenney and Sports Authority, among many other major retail chains—has asked a federal judge to let him withdraw his guilty plea. His stated reason is that, as an undercover informant for the U.S. Secret Service, he was legally authorized to break into those networks. But his court filings don’t seem to support his claim.

Gonzalez doesn’t allege that any government employee ever asked—or authorized—him to do any of the break-ins for which he pled guilty. His position is more generic, that he needed to do these types of break-ins to maintain his skills so he would be of continued use to the government. In other words, he broke into those retail networks because he’s a patriot.

His precise position is that he did not knowingly plead guilty, because he didn’t know that a possible defense was that the government authorized him to engage in those actions—something known as the Public Authority defense.

“I was asked to commit acts I knew were illegal, but I complied in order to please the agents who had shown me such respect and friendship,” Gonzalez wrote in his federal filing. “When I commented on something being illegal, they told me, ‘Don’t worry. We got your back.'”

Gonzalez claimed in his filing that, ironically, he was a victim of identity theft and that the perpetrator was a Secret Service employee. He wrote of “an incident where a Secret Service employee out of the Washington, D.C., headquarters was fraudulently using my [confidential informant] number to steal confidential informant funds for her own personal use. The person was fired from the Secret Service and criminally prosecuted.”

He also argued that a fellow cyberthief, Maksym Yastremskiy, was beaten and tortured by Turkish National Police. As a result of that torture, Gonzalez wrote, Yastremskiy revealed a pass phrase that was needed to access files on his laptop.

“Gonzalez’s arrest and prosecution started as the result of the information obtained from the encrypted containers in Yastremskiy’s laptop computer. Without the information retrieved from Yastremskiy’s laptop, there would be no case against Gonzalez,” Gonzalez wrote. “Prior to obtaining the information through the torture and beating of Yastremskiy, Albert Gonzalez’s name and participation in Yastremskiy’s cybercrime organization was unknown” to Secret Service agents.

Although that claim is the strongest legal argument Gonzalez makes, it also sharply undercuts his chief argument about Public Authority. It’s strong because, if it can be proven, there could be grounds to suppress that evidence and anything that came from it. That might be helpful to Gonzalez, if he can prove that the Secret Service would not have discovered him any other way.

But it also sharply contradicts his core argument.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.