Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sklyarov Discusses the ElcomSoft Trial

Posted by michael on from the joseph-k dept.

DaytonCIM writes "Dmitry Sklyarov talks openly about the ElcomSoft trial to CNET News. The 'Russian programmer thinks it was unfair of prosecutors to play his videotaped deposition at the ElcomSoft trial rather than calling him to the stand.'"

12 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. Whats the difference... by pilot1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    whether a video tape is played, or he is called to the stand to say the samething? He couldn't change what he said since he was under oath, so it seems the same.

    1. Re:Whats the difference... by Moofie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Two words.

      Cross examination.

      It's, like, a fundamental part of our legal structure. The opposing side gets to IMMEDIATELY challenge your statements on the stand, obviously with the intent to lessen the impact of those statements on the jury.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    2. Re:Whats the difference... by frankie · · Score: 5, Insightful
      since he was under oath, so it seems the same.

      Hmm... held under guard in a foreign country and not allowed to go home until you make a video tape that incriminates you and/or your friends... nope, I can't think of any reason the testimony might be faulty. Of course, when folks in "the axis of evil" do things like that, our freedom-loving leaders tend to call it "hostage taking" and "terrorism".

  2. Hmm... by Cali+Thalen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Video someone before the trial, edit the tape, and play that back in court...and with no intention of letting him stand up and defend himself?

    Sounds like someing you'd hear about in a _really_ backwards country somewhere...

    --
    Chaos, panic, disorder...my work here is done.
    1. Re:Hmm... by sweetooth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, you mean like the new and improved United States of America?

      I swear, I'm gonna move to New Zealand, or Australia, or Canada or something.

    2. Re:Hmm... by DeepRedux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sklyarov was not on trial here, so he has no right to present testimony on his own behalf. The one with rights is the defendant, ElcomSoft, his employer. ElcomSoft had the right, which they exercised, to have Sklyarov testify live in court.

      In the US, it is not the job of the prosecution to fairly present both sides. The prosecution's job is to make the best case they can against the defendant and the defense's job is to rebut the case. The judge has the task of making sure that both sides have the opportunity to present their case, within the rules of evidence.

  3. The 5th amendmant by ACNeal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They can't compel him to testify, so why ask him to? It would have wasted everyones time to call him to the stand.

    If he had something to say his lawyers would call him to the stand in rebuttal to the prosecution.

  4. It's Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US Constitution says that you have the right to own a gun. A tool with but one purpose and that is to kill. Killing is illegal - but you write a piece of software that could potentially be used to pirate something but has several other good purposes and they throw you in jail. I will never underestimate the stupidity of american lawmakers.

    1. Re:It's Amazing by penguin_dance · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's amazing the above post being rated as "insightful" instead of what it really is..."flamebait."

      And no, it isn't illegal to kill someone if you are defending yourself. Not in the US anyway. Which is exactly the example Sklyarov made.

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
  5. Breaking US laws in Russia by cyberkreiger · · Score: 0, Insightful

    He got arrested for breaking a US law in Russia! Hello? Hello? Am i the only one who sees this? I have yet to read one article in news media which mentions this. I feel like i'm taking crazy pills!

    --
    Stumbling in the dark
    I hear slavering of jaws
    Eaten by a grue.
  6. Sad times... by kaosrain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He said if someone came to him with another project focused on cracking copyrights, "I would ask you, if you're sure this is legal." If the answer is unclear, Sklyarov said he would suggest the person find a lawyer who could figure it out.

    I'm sure he was told his previous project was legal. It's sad that now lawyers will have to say "Yes, this is legal. Except in the USA."

  7. I'm hardly misrepresenting anything... by Interrobang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do folks keep misrepresenting what actually happened here?

    The fact is, he did all his work on the product (which is legal in its country of origin) in Russia, where, last I heard, US laws don't apply. The fact that they were waiting to arrest him, apparently, for giving an academic lecture on a product he produced where it was legal is far more disturbing than you make it out to be.

    ISTR that Skylarov isn't the first person to whom this sort of jurisdictional knucklebones has happened at the behest of some large, US-based money-wielding entity. As you may recall when the DeCSS story broke, the US wanted Jon Johansen to stand trial in the US for breaking a US law when he wasn't even in the US when he allegedly "broke" it (how can you break the law of another country when you aren't even there, I'd like to know?), but that quickly passed off around the same time as the Norwegian authorities decided to go ahead and prosecute him for related offenses, real or imagined. Also, you may recall Edward Felten's legal difficulties surrounding his paper on encryption.

    All of which, in my (paranoid?) mind, adds up to the US's playing very fast and loose with international law (what else is new?) and an immense chilling effect in the technology field.

    If it were provable that Elocomsoft was deliberately and knowingly (with malice aforethought) selling products to customers not legally able to buy them, that would be another matter, which I think was upheld with the verdict here. However, the very clear perception that I'm getting from the Elocomsoft case in general is that the US wants to enforce the DMCA worldwide, and will do just about anything it can to make sure that it gets what it wants. Note, please, I'm not a US citizen, and so don't have US patriotism getting in the way of my natural impulses to be skeptical and cynical of the US government's motives in any given instance, so I could be erring on the side of hostility here.

    --
    I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.