Marcus 'MalwareTech' Hutchins Gets No Prison Time, One Year Supervised Release

An anonymous reader writes: Marcus 'MalwareTech' Hutchins, the security researcher who helped stop the WannaCry ransomware outbreak, was sentenced today in the US to time served and one year of supervised release. The UK-born malware analyst avoided the prison time in the case as the judge described "too many positives on other side of ledger" -- referring to Hutchins' role in the WannaCry ransomware outbreak and his work as a malware analyst. Judge J. P. Stadmueller had a difficult decision on his hand, and would have considered a pardon. However, courts have no such power, and deferred to the executive branch. In court, Hutchins apologized, again, to victims, family, and friends. The judge waived any fines. The sentence comes after Hutchins pleaded guilty this April on two charges of entering a conspiracy to create and distribute malware, and in aiding and abetting its distribution.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[110010001000]

White-hacker? He developed malware that was used to steal bank login credentials from browsers.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

"would have considered a pardon"

[110010001000]

"and would have considered a pardon. However, courts have no such power, and deferred to the executive branch"
 
What? Why would he have considered a pardon if he had no power to do so? Did the guys Mom write the summary?

Re:

[sjames]

It parses just fine, read it again paying special attention to "would have". As in, IF the judge had the requisite authority, he WOULD HAVE considered...

Re:

[110010001000]

Well yeah I know what they meant, but what a weird thing to say. The judge gave him a sentence, but "would have" considered a pardon? Says who? Did the judge actually say that? Very unlikely.

Re:

[nomadic]

Does sound a little strange for a judge to say, and this one seems reasonably competent (in a bizarre coincidence I once had a case in front of this judge during my thankfully brief lawyering days).

Re:

[paazin]

Well yeah I know what they meant, but what a weird thing to say. The judge gave him a sentence, but "would have" considered a pardon? Says who? Did the judge actually say that? Very unlikely.

Given what the judge said, it could be interpreted as advocacy for a pardon:

...

Stadtmueller: This [deterrence] not a matter that ought to be of concern for your court, bc you turned a corner before appearance before bar of justice.

Stadtmueller: one one hand that makes you a hero, on other hand, doesn't wipe out i

Re: "would have considered a pardon"

[Zero__Kelvin]

Why is it unlikely? Judges say such things all the time. For example, on the other end of the spectrum they often give the maximum sentence stating they would give more time and then express that they don't have that power because the law doesn't afford them that power.

Re: "would have considered a pardon"

[Zero__Kelvin]

Did *your* mom home school you? The sentence has no flaw in grammar, nor is the idea it communicates wrong.

Article

[Kernel Kurtz]

this would seem to be the article not linked in this story.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/... [zdnet.com]

Re:

[Mike Van Pelt]

"The prosecution responded by piling new charges, including for lying to the FBI, which many legal experts deemed ludicrous, at the time."

Which is why you never talk to a fed. Never talk to a fed. Never, EVER talk to a fed.

Re:

[OverlordQ]

You can click the zdnet.com link next to the title.

Re:

[iCEBaLM]

The difference with firearms are that in many cases their primary intended use is not to shoot people, but for hunting, target, or sport shooting. If you design a pistol and sell it for target shooting, and some idiot goes out on a rampage with it you shouldn't be held liable for that.

The slippery slope to this is baseball bat, golf club, hockey stick, kitchen knife, and rope manufacturers would all be liable for the way their products are used.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of crazy dystopia do you people live in. Does no one see anything wrong with this? Is public safety paramount above everything else because we've all become wusses?

Re: Gun companies...aren't...to blame?

[Zero__Kelvin]

Why is the police officer "scared for his" life, which by the way is not a crime? A bat is not a weapon, anymore than a car is a weapon. Next you will be saying it is illegal to drive a car unless you have a specific destination. Unless the person is swinging it wildly and screaming obscenities he is certainly not "disturbing the peace." Stop being an idiot and just admit you made a ridiculous claim. Trying to make it sound like you didn't just makes your posts more ridiculous.

Re:

[mrclevesque]

"A bat is not a weapon"

Neither is this :
https://youtu.be/KfPewYlImY8?t... [youtu.be]

And if you than don't put down your 'weapon' you can be (and people have been in similar situations) arrested for obstruction or not cooperating with a police officer.

Re: Gun companies...aren't...to blame?

[Zero__Kelvin]

You have posted in the wrong thread. You are looking for "will cops ignore the law and do illegal shit themselves?"thread. This is the "are baseball bats illegal thread." As you rightly stated, they are not.

Re:

[mrclevesque]

You have posted in the wrong thread.

Yeah, in a way, I miss read the thread.

To be more precise, an officer is acting legally if they really feel someone (including themselves) is threatened. So even though a baseball bat isn't illegal or a weapon, an officer has the right to treat it as such if he feels the situation warrants it.

Re: Gun companies...aren't...to blame?

[Zero__Kelvin]

The keyword there is *really*. Since no reasonable person could *really* feel threatened, let alone a big tough alpha douche, by the mere presence of a baseball bat, this entire subthread is a Red Herring.

Re:

[mrclevesque]

"Since no reasonable person could *really* feel threatened"

I think they can, and in many cases judges have agreed that the mere presence of a bat (stick, cell phone, etc), when considered in context, can make it reasonable to conclude that an officer really did feel threatened.

But in my link to youtube, from the officer's recording it looks like he really thinks that just calling the picker a weapon gives him the automatic right to treat the person as a suspect who's carrying a weapon. It doesn't, and he wa

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

"I think they can, and in many cases judges have agreed that the mere presence of a bat (stick, cell phone, etc), when considered in context, can make it reasonable to conclude that an officer really did feel threatened."

OK. Now you are looking for the "Are Judges also often fascist scumbags who will cosign a cops bullshit?" thread.

Re:

[iCEBaLM]

And if you carry around a baseball bat and aren't a baseball player on the way to a practice, you can be arrested for that.

You can be arrested for anything, just like you can be sued for anything, doesn't make it legal. Literally everything can be a weapon and it would be absolutely silly to try to litigate against.

They're deadly weapons with no other purpose than being deadly weapons, even if you only shoot them at targets.

"They're deadly weapons with no other purpose than being deadly weapons, even if you

Re:

[iCEBaLM]

I am confused. Are you saying that because any tool can be used as a weapon there is no such thing as a weapon, just tools being used to cause harm?

No, I'm saying that manufacturers shouldn't be held liable for the misuse of their products.

There is a reason I can bring a pen into a school without people being afraid of its possible use to kill as opposed to a sword, bow or AR-15.

The reason is because everyone has pens, everyone is used to seeing pens, and the primary used of a pen in school is as a writing