US Piles New Charges on Marcus Hutchins (aka MalwareTech) (bleepingcomputer.com) 104
British cyber-security researcher Marcus Hutchins, who has been credited with stopping the spread of WannaCry, is now facing four more charges related to separate malware he is alleged to have created. BleepingComputer reports: According to court documents, the new charges are for allegedly creating another piece of malware and for lying to the FBI. Hutchins had previously been accused of creating and selling the Kronos banking trojan last year. But in a superseding indictment filed this week, U.S. prosecutors claim Hutchins also coded and sold another piece of malware called the UPAS Kit. According to US prosecutors, UPAS Kit "used a form grabber and web injects to intercept and collect personal information from a protected computer," and "allowed for the unauthorized exfiltration of information from protected computers." The U.S. government claims Hutchins sold this second malware strain in July 2012 to a person going by the online pseudonym of Aurora123, who later infected US users. Hutchins expressed disappointment on the development, tweeting, "Spend months and $100k+ fighting this case, then they go and reset the clock by adding even more bullshit charges like 'lying to the FBI.' We require more minerals." In a subsequent tweet, he requested people to help him with the cost of legal proceedings.
Trump maybe pardons him? (Score:1)
Maybe so?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Well bringing up the war of 1812 was stupid. But Canada was part of England during the war of 1812, so they were part of the invasion.
Also England won the war of 1812, as its objectives was to prevent the U.S. from taking over English Territories (Canada).
Re: Trump maybe pardons him? (Score:3, Informative)
You're Canadian I take it (the reason I'm guessing that is because most Canadians think it was a war of conquest on the part of the US, and they also think it was Canadians who burned the White House, but the joke's on them: Canada had no actual Army, it was all British Army, and Canada only had defensive militia, which quickly fell once the US went on the offensive.)
So while they might teach that in Canadian schools, that's not what happened. During the Napoleonic wars, England raised a naval blockade to p
Re: Trump maybe pardons him? (Score:1)
God damn it's so hard to proofread slashdot comments on mobile
Re: (Score:1)
I know it's easy to find yourself jumping on the "Let's all laugh at Trump" bandwagon as there's all too much to just roll your eyes about that man, but in this case the low-effort mockery isn't actually deserved.
Ars Technica has an article on this too (Score:4, Informative)
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
*allegedly* I understand that the lying new-speak fascists and bible-banging evangelical death cultist fucktards now run the US, but we still have the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"
You've ... got a little froth right there ... on the corner ... thought you might want to know.
Re: (Score:1)
You sound like someone who is very pleasant and who definitely leaves the house often!
impossible to tell [Re:Stop making him out to...] (Score:1)
*allegedly* ... we still have the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"
Yep. And the ability to hold off making a judgement until we know the details.
It is entirely plausible that he could both be working on increasing security, and also be responsible for malware himself. But it is also plausible that the prosecutors are overreaching, or misinterpreting actions that were not malicious.
without seeing the evidence, it's impossible to tell either way.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no allegedly. He's admitted to selling Malware for cash. The proven guilty is self admittance.
Re: (Score:1)
He's far from rich. He's got quite a bit of people donating to his legal fund. A lot of people. And a lot of people helping for free on his legal as well.
"Lying to the FBI" (Score:5, Insightful)
"Lying to the FBI" is what you get charged with when they can't find anything else.
Hell, they'll even manufacture a claim of "witness tampering" over a one-minute phone call and a text saying "We need to talk".
Re: (Score:2)
It's akin to "hate crime", where they pretend to know what the accused was thinking.
Re:"Lying to the FBI" (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, you know, when you've been found to have lied to the FBI -- which is an actual crime.
If someone is a witness for the case against you, and you know this, saying "we need to talk" is illegal. That's actual witness tampering ... again, an actual crime, because you are barred from communicating with them precisely to prevent you from trying to get your stories straight.
You seem to be suggesting that actual crimes shouldn't be treated as actual crimes. Which tells me you've drank way too much of the kool-aid.
So, ask yourself this in your twisted little partisan mind ... if the tables were turned, and your 'crooked Hillary' was caught lying to the FBI and trying to get together with witnesses against her ... would you be saying the same thing? My guess is no, you'd be shrieking loudly about how she'd breaking the law.
If you think it's only legal when your team is the one committing the crimes, you're a fucking moron.
The only ones defending lying to the FBI and witness tampering are the ones who think the law doesn't apply to them. Fuck those people, they're so fucking crooked it isn't funny.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Which is why whenever the FBI asks to speak to you your answer should be, "I have nothing to say in the absence of my lawyer."
When they ask you to go with them ask if you are under arrest or detainment. If the answer is no, politely decline. If the take you anyway say nothing until you can contact your lawyer.
Re: "Lying to the FBI" (Score:1)
Lying to the FBI definitely should not be a crime. They use this to nail people who are otherwise innocent (Martha Stewart), to pressure people into pkea bargains, etc.. Often it's bullshit, because misstatements or fallible memories are errors, not lying. Or they pressure you and trick you into a misstatement.
Re: (Score:3)
No problem, never want to get busted by the FBI for lying to them, all to easy, simply express you opinion always, never ever make statements of fact ie I believe this happened, I remember this, in my opinion. Don't even make statements of fake, only express you opinion on what you believed occurred but you can't be certain. If you are not sure, clearly state you are not sure and you should always be not sure. First choice, don't answer questions, second choice do it all in writing, written questions and an
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "Lying to the FBI" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Lying to FBI: one reason you Never Talk to Police (Score:5, Insightful)
The "Lying to the FBI" (or other lying to cops) charge is one of the several reasons you Never Talk to Police [youtube.com].
See the above video for a law professor's lecture on many more.
Instead you ALWAYS exercise your Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent. ESPECIALLY if you're innocent. ANYTHING you tell them "can and will be used against you".
Even if it's true, somebody else may have told them something conflicting - through error or malice - and the police and prosecutors may then decide you're lying. Bingo: Both a criminal charge and the burden of proof switches from them proving you're guilty to you proving you're innocent.
Re: (Score:1)
Marcus Hutchins is a UK citizen, facing US justice. Can he legally take the 5th? Does the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution extend to apply to anyone charged under US law, or does it just apply to US citizens charged under US law?
One way to think about this would be to consider the reciprocal. If a US citizen were charged in the UK under UK law, could that citizen claim the right to silence courtesy of the 5th Amendment? I don't think they could
Re:Lying to FBI: one reason you Never Talk to Poli (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lying to FBI: one reason you Never Talk to Poli (Score:4, Insightful)
The Constitution applies to all people on US soil, not just citizens.
Except the ones accused of being terrorists, or knowing terrorists, or living in an area where terrorists were once suspected to also live. They don't get rights. Especially not the parts about "speedy trial" and the right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" (6th amendment).
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution of the US applies to the US government everywhere and for all purposes. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the US government from compelling anyone (US citizen or not) anywhere (on US soil or not) to testify against himself.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me where it says they're not. Since you've read it, that'll be quicker.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
England also has a 'right to remain silent'. But they can hold your silence against you, if you later claim a defense you didn't speak about during initial interrogation.
Not an English shyster, but silence is still your best bet. England also has volumes of unenforced laws, they all commit 3 felonies/day, same as Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
England also has a 'right to remain silent'. But they can hold your silence against you, if you later claim a defense you didn't speak about during initial interrogation.
In England, maybe, but not in America.
You can't bring up a new defense after the trial, but no, you don't have to bring up a defense until after you talk to a lawyer, and being silent before you consult a lawyer explicitly can not legally be used against you.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, your silence can be used against when under oath, sometimes, but not usually otherwise. IE if you take the witness stand, you cannot just answer the defenses questions, once you answer questions about an event, generally you have to answer all questions about that event, or your silence can be used to weigh your other testimony. But since testimony given to a police... is not "on the record" and it cannot be brought up in your defense, you can go silent at anytime. I think because the prosecut
Re: (Score:2)
The 5th amendment enumerates a right, but it is couched in the form of a restraint on the governemnt's power to compel testimony: "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".
In theory, anyone anywhere has the right not to answer a question posed by a member of the US government or their representative if responding might cause them to provide incriminating evidence. In practice, if you are in a foreign country, good luck exercising this right: the US will just hav
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like refusing to even talk to the police or pleading the 5th to every question isn't going to make you look really suspicious even if you're completely innocent. Oh wait...
No you're already suspicious. The point is not giving an inch of rope to the hangman.
Also nickname checks out :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Show me the man, I'll find you the crime (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since the government side of this is essentially operating like organized crime, I doubt this will help. Also, they can just endlessly level charges against you until you run out of money and with no risk whatsoever to them. They can essentially be evil to an unlimited degree as long as they formally follow the rules enough so you cannot prove anything against them and make it stick. This means they can figuratively (and if they send the cops in just the right way also literally) kill anybody they do
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On the flip side I know a CA shyster, one of his most lucrative fields is 'uncopping' a cop. If you have high five figures to spend, he will just go at the cop administratively and legally until his is unbondable (claiming he is working 'pro bono' for all people that fill out a complaint against said cop).
Then his employer will fire him and he will be a mall cop. Then whichever rich person this cop helped convict gets a new trial. All during this process the cop doesn't even know who is paying the bills
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Anything that puts 'fear of losing their fun' into cops heads is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side I know a CA shyster, one of his most lucrative fields is 'uncopping' a cop. If you have high five figures to spend, he will just go at the cop administratively and legally until his is unbondable (claiming he is working 'pro bono' for all people that fill out a complaint against said cop).
Then his employer will fire him and he will be a mall cop. Then whichever rich person this cop helped convict gets a new trial. All during this process the cop doesn't even know who is paying the bills to end his fun.
As corrupt as that process is, it's about the only check left on cops power.
Corruption is never a check on corruption, it just yields yet more corruption. This is not a check on a cops power, it's a way for the rick to buy their way out.
Re: (Score:2)
It's both.
Re: (Score:2)
> The government has infinite resources
You say that like the government in the US is a single entity. I know the local DA where I lived on average had less than a hour, to prosecute.
This made it very difficult on things like Drunk Driving, spousal abuse... Anyone who could spend $1000 on a defense was virtually guaranteed no, or at worst a plea with little punishment (other than the money spent.) Also makes it very difficult on the victims to get any relief if they didn't have the same resources as the
"kidnapping" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They typically have to go through a formal process with allies like the UK. And the UK is less and less inclined to extradite when the possible sentence in the US is disproportionate to the crime.
And lately the sentences are getting stiffer and stiffer for even petty crimes and it has nothing to do with public safety, health, or morals. It's all about the money! Tougher sentences mean more prisons which need more services and that means more money to the corporations that profit from the providing those services. Furthmore, law enforcement equipment providers make more money providing equipment and services.
Re: (Score:3)
It's actually complicated. Sentences on a state level tend to be trending downward. There's been backlash against thoughtless "three strikes = life sentence" laws and against excessive drug sentencing. Marijuana is also trending towards legalization on the state level.
Federal sentences are probably staying the same. The Obama admin did a bit to mitigate the excessive ones, Trump may undo this good work.
The problem isn't that sentencing is getting harsher, as much as that it's generally overly harsh in t
Re: (Score:2)
There's been backlash against thoughtless "three strikes = life sentence" laws and against excessive drug sentencing.
The California 3 strikes and you're out was that the first two strikes had to be violent felonies. Calling that thoughtless is either misinformed or shows a strange love of violent crime. How many assaults, murders, and rapes must a person commit in your world before you want them locked up for life?
Re: (Score:2)
So the first two could be bar fights and the last stealing a sandwich. Even in California's implementation, the law is idiotic. I don't love violent crime, but I do think that violent crims can be rehabilitated.
How many crimes? Case by case decision, and should be subject to a parole review after 10 years. A person is often completely different at age 35 than at age 25.
Re: (Score:2)
The first two had to be felonies, which is more involved than a bar fight unless said bar fight was out of hand. As for the sandwich - did you just watch Les Miserables? The third strike has to be a felony so maybe it involved taking the sandwich at gunpoint. A person who gets sentenced under 3 strikes is no angel or misunderstood youth.
Violent crime can be rehabilitated if the punishment is bad enough. In truth the best way to reduce violent crime is by punishing kids and infants before they have a chan
More bodies to feed .... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh please. Less than 13% of federal prisoners are are in private prisons.
Assumption of innocence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yes, the real answer is we haven't seen the evidence, and we simply don't know; we don't have the information to know.
He says he didn't do it. But that doesn't really count for much.
Re: (Score:1)
The fact that the FBI agents have, on the stand and on court documents, been caught misstating facts or outright lying, counts for a good bit too.
See the Empty Wheel take on this story. (Googling left to the reader.)