Feds Admit Error In McDanel Security Case

prostoalex writes "US federal prosecutors have admitted that an error was made in prosecuting Bret McDanel under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. McDanel discovered a security vulnerability on his former employer's server, and seeing that little efforts were put into repairing it, sent out e-mails to the customers of Tornado Development Inc. After the prosecution revised the court materials, they admitted there was no proof that McDanel intended to impair the system's integrity."

Comments

OK people

[Evil Adrian]

Are we going to be grown-ups about this, or are there going to be a million immature posts about how every hacker that has broken the law should be freed?

Re:OK people

[fdiskne1]

Are we going to be grown-ups about this, or are there going to be a million immature posts...

You're new here aren't you?

Re:OK people

[squiggleslash]

My belief is that this is clearly the tip of the iceberg: clearly the feds are constantly making major errors along these lines. As such, we must free all hackers, even those that have clearly broken the law, and also all other convicted criminals too.

Some may argue that this will mean the streets will be terrorised by freed thieves and muggers. However, on the plus side, our taxes will be greatly reduced, and we can turn our prisons to more productive uses, for example we can build within them factories to make plastic Pope John Paul II figurines, and large, life-sized, cardboard cut-outs of Xena, Warrior Princess. I think we can all agree that this will be vastly better than the alternatives.

Re:OK people

[Seth Finklestein]

As a lawyer, I can tell you that civil suits require damages of some kind. Mr. McDanel caused no damages of any kind to the servers. He did not take down any machines. He did not post exploits to the Internet. Simply put, he is a perfectly harmless individual.

Frankly, I believe that the justice system fears individuals with computer knowledge. The judges presiding today are the same ignoramuses who have been on the bench since the 1970s. Now, I've been using computers since the 1980s (that's right, I said *80s*) and I can tell you a thing or two about judges.

1. They wouldn't know a computer from the back of their hand.
2. Anyone who "hacks" a computer can crack into national security, in their "opinions."

Putting a man like Cheng in charge of justice is like putting Michael Sims in charge of a web site. You just don't do it.

Re:OK people

[dswensen]

+1 Funny

Re:OK people

[TedCheshireAcad]

Free Kevin!

oh...wait...

Re:OK people

[Pyro226]

You're new here aren't you?

I am new here, you insensitive clod. (Look at the extremely high user ID)

Also, most hackers like this should be freed. He was trying to do the right thing, even if it meant exposing a weakness and inviting the black hats. Crackers on the other hand, who exploit weaknesses for their own gain should still be prosecuted and punished.

Re:OK people

[orthogonal]

As a lawyer, I can tell you that civil suits require damages of some kind.

IAAS (I am a skeptic).

The parent poster claims he is a lawyer.

His website is listed as http://sethf.com/

On that website, he apologigizes for his HTML with "Quick navigation (I'm a server programmer, not a web-designer ...)"

On that same page, he describes himself as "Seth Finkelstein - Anti-censorship activist and programmer Seth Finkelstein "

On that same page, he makes reference to, and links to, a whitepaper he co-wrote. The whitepaper lists its authors as "Seth Finkelstein, Consulting Programmer; Lee Tien, Senior Staff Attorney, EFF".

Now perhaps Mr. Finklestein, in addition to being a programmer, has received a J.D. so recently his personal web page hasn't yet been updated to note it.

Or perhaps the Slashdot poster is an imposter who links to the real Seth Finklestein's pages.

But it seems most likely that Mr. Finklestein, wanting to be able to make an argument from authority in his post, invented a credential for himself that he has not earned. (I hope not, and I hope Mr. Finklestein will clear this up.)

What's most disappointing about this is that, looking at his web site, Mr. Finkesteing has much to be proud of -- real accomplishments of real merit.

Or perhaps not: if he's willing to make up a J.D. just to bolster an argument, one must wonder how much his web page is to be believed. One must ask whether his whitepaper, co-written with a real lawyer from the EFF, can in fact be trusted.

That's the shame of this: one unconsidered lie taints the believability of everything the seemingly accomplished and thoughtful Mr. Finklestein might say in the future.

Re:OK people

[joshmoh]

keen eye, lawyer-san! ever think of being slashdot's own private eye?

from: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/hearing_dc.php

OPENING STATEMENT BY SETH FINKELSTEIN

MR. FINKELSTEIN: I would like to thank the Committee for inviting me here. I would also like to beg your indulgence if I make any procedural or cultural errors. I am not a lawyer. I am not a public relations -- sorry, shall I start over again?

Okay, as I say, I would again like to beg the Committee's indulgence if I make any procedural or cultural errors because I am not a lawyer; I am not a public relations person. I did have a better shirt, but I am literally straight off the plane this morning to come here.

This is not my job. I am a professional programmer by trade. I have no training or experience in Washington politics. If I make any mistakes in how I present myself or how I answer, I ask you to indulge me in that.

...perfect end to end the quote, too... :)

Re:OK people

[frank_adrian314159]

Free Kevin!

Hey! In this house, sonny, you pay for all the Kevin you get!

tee hee...

[potpie]

Every hacker that has broken the law should be freed!

Re:tee hee...

[Evil Adrian]

ROFL! I eat my words!

Re:tee hee...

[jo42]

And every lawyer, marketing or sales person should be presented with butt plug, extra large, and required to 'wear' it at all times...

Cold comfort

[Jonathunder]

Little consolation, after serving 16 months in prison, to be told that the prosecution was a mistake.

But this is a country which has hundreds of people locked up, with currently no prospect of seeing their day in court, or even a lawyer.

Re:Cold comfort

[fenix down]

G-Mo rep'esent.

Re:Cold comfort

[SoSueMe]

Wouldn't it be real justice for clueless judges to have to serve similar sentences to the ones they F***ed up on?

Re:Cold comfort

[Rick the Red]

He's takling about the United States of America

Re:Cold comfort

[GreyPoopon]

Little consolation, after serving 16 months in prison, to be told that the prosecution was a mistake.

Actually, it could be tremendous opportunity. Let's examine the possible outcomes. Disclaimer: IANAL.

1. If the conviction is successfully appealed, he can then have his record expunged, so he no longer has to answer "yes" to the job application question "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" That's a real multipler for success when seeking jobs in the future.
2. Now that the federal government is "backing" his story of not intending to cause problems with the servers, he may be seen in a more amicable light by potential employers.
3. I believe he now has amunition for lawsuits against both his former employer and the federal government.

Having said all of that, I believe the feds should hang their heads in shame for being overzealous and making the mistake in the first place, but should be commended for admitting the mistake. That's a step up for our government.

Re:Cold comfort

[1029]

The only thing about all of those linked stories is... they aren't American citizens being held in Guantanamo. However you feel about their detention in Cuba (of all places!), it really has no relevance to the post about due process. Non-American citizens have no inherant rights to a speedy (or any) trial in America.

Re:Cold comfort

[GreyPoopon]

Wouldn't it be real justice for clueless judges to have to serve similar sentences to the ones they F***ed up on?

Do you think maybe it should be each of the members of the jury instead?

Re:Cold comfort

[Rick the Red]

Yeah, 16 months of anal rape might just make the Judge think twice the next time this subject comes up. But I think the prosecutors should also have to go to jail for 16 months, since it was their mistake.

Re:Cold comfort

[insertionPoint]

But this is a country which has hundreds of people locked up, with currently no prospect of seeing their day in court, or even a lawyer.

I can tell your' glass is always half empty. Locked up, no day in court, no charges, no rights or even fair representation. But do you mention, no bill for staying on a luxurious tropical island paradise?

Re:Cold comfort

[SoSueMe]

No.
The judge can set aside a verdict which is an obvious misinterpretation of the law by the jury.

In the simplest of terms, he was found guilty of damages to their business.

The damage, however, was not so much to their systems, as the law he was conviced of states is punishable, but to their reputation, as their lawyers argued.

Re:Cold comfort

[rifter]

The only thing about all of those linked stories is... they aren't American citizens being held in Guantanamo. However you feel about their detention in Cuba (of all places!), it really has no relevance to the post about due process. Non-American citizens have no inherant rights to a speedy (or any) trial in America.

Actually they do, but currently the government is bending the law. Firstly, this country was founded on the principle that all men are equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. People in other countries do not have a different creator.

Historically, non-citizens in this country have enjoyed, in addition to rights granted by international law, many of the rights granted to US citizens. There have been cases where international law has been bent before, such as the refusal of states to notify the consulate of the country of origin of aliens sentenced to die as required by international law and as requested by the federal government, but there have never been abuses on the current scale.

In addition, the "combatants" at guantanimo bay have not been clasified under any legal term because no matter how they were classified their current treatment violates their rights under US and international laws. If they are criminals they get a trial; if they are prisoners of war they get freed at the end of the war, etc.

Also, there are people at Guantanimo bay who are technically citizens of the United States or a western democracy such as the UK or Australia. They are not getting the treatment usually afforded such citizens.

On top of all of this, when our citizens get into trouble abroad there are often treaties in place which guarantee their rights, and outcry when those rights ae violated. Likewise when people from other countries get into trouble here. Such outcry often ends in some kind of compromise and these treaties are supposed to be enforced. They are not being enforced here and neither is there any compromise.

Then there are the people who were rounded up and detained within the US. Most were non-citizens, but some were citizens. In these cases none of the normal due-process was followed (access to a lawyer, specific charges, etc etc) and neither have many of these people been released. As far as anyone can tell, there have been people imprisoned with no access to lawyers, no charges, no evidence, and no trial for over 2 years now. Numbers have ranged from hundreds to thousands because the administration is not admitting a lot and hoping people will just forget about the whole thing.

The whole process is unamerican, antidemocratic, and is the doctrine of our very enemies; it needs to be stopped.

Re:Cold comfort

[Best ID Ever!]

Non-American citizens have no inherant rights to a speedy (or any) trial in America.

They should if we're the ones detaining them, and we truly believe our laws are just. Deport them or charge them, but holding them indefinitely is wrong.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

Re:Cold comfort

[SoSueMe]

Cool.
You spent 16 months away from your family, friends, home, job (if you were lucky enough to have one after the tech bust), all the things that define you as you, and then tell me what a "tremendous opportunity" it was.
No need to explain the 1 and a half year gap in your resume, all the PHBs will see you as one of "those" people.

Re:Cold comfort

[EricWright]

I believe the feds should hang their heads in shame for being overzealous and making the mistake in the first place, but should be commended for admitting the mistake.

Right... let's see if you still feel the same way when the feds admit they fucked up one day after having [a family member|close friend|you] executed for a murder you didn't commit. OK, yah, I'm being sensationalistic here, but the point is the same. Do you really think he feels better after 16 months in the federal pokey to hear the feds say "Oops... sorry about that. Friends?"

Re:Cold comfort

[Geekbot]

I kind of figured this guy was just being sarcastic. I hope so anyway. He can't even go after the company, probably for several reasons, but primarily because they are gone. Good luck trying to prove that the new company is really the old company just pulling that old corporate sham.

Re:Cold comfort

[Dhalka226]

As for point 3, prosecutors, judges, and (I believe) juries are immune from being sued for doing their jobs in good faith, so unless you can prove that the 'government' knowingly prosecuted him wrongfully there's no lawsuit opportunity either.

Wrongful imprisonment is something that can be sued for. It has happened dozens of times in the state of Illinois alone (which is why former Gov. Ryan issued a moratorium on the death penalty). Whether the suit would be against the attorney or the state or who is irrelevant. The money will come from somewhere. And if the government is smart, they will offer a sizeable sum of money as a settlement and avoid the issue being taken to a jury that will award millions for spilling coffee on yourself.

Does it make up for 16 months in prison? No. But what is done is done: All that can be done now is to issue the apology (done) and offer fair compensation.

Re:Cold comfort

[EverDense]

so he no longer has to answer "yes" to the job application question "Have you ever been
convicted of a felony?" That's a real multipler for success when seeking jobs in the future.

Unless you are trying to get a job with the Russian Mafia.

Re:Cold comfort

[davebo]

Well said.

It frightens me how so many people don't recognize the serious infringments on constitutional rights our government is performing in the name of "security" makes us all less secure.

Re:Cold comfort

[duplo]

In terms of international law, there are Combatants, non-combatants and protected persons.

Combatants have a whole bunch of rules they follow such as wearing a distinguised uniform, bearing open arms, being in an organisation with its own disciplinary structure (ie military). Also if the citizens of a nation are uprising against oppressors they are combatants too. Once a combatant is captured they must be treated appropriately as a PW (Prisoner of War) and repatriated once the war has finished (this is where the US has failed).

Non-combatants are basically civilians, and protected persons are people like medics and priests who cannot be targeted.

As far as I know, the US Govt has taken all these 'combatants' and locked them up permanently - and not treating them the way the UN demands PW's be treated.

The way the Government has gotten around this is by basically inventing a new type of person called "unlawful combatant" - which is not recognised by UN International law (as in America is not allowed to do this).

Re:Cold comfort

[taniwha]

Congress has not yat made a formal declaration of war - if there is no war, how can it ever be over?

Re:Cold comfort

[9mind]

Opportunity? 16 months in a federal penn is 16 months in a mentally and physically damaging environment, that even the hardest of people can never recover from. Don't forget the majority of people who go into the penn, come out worse than they went in...

Heck, what opportunity would you be thinking about after being a$s raped for about a year?

Re:Cold comfort

[ninejaguar]

What distinguishes 'bending' from 'breaking' in this case?

= 9J =

Re:Cold comfort

[JCholewa]

> Right... let's see if you still feel the same
> way when the feds admit they fucked up one day
> after having [a family member|close friend|you]
> executed for a murder you didn't commit.

I think that I would most certainly not feel the same way if I was executed.

--
-JC

Re:Cold comfort

[corbettw]

Don't forget the fourth category, illegal combatants. These are people who don't wear uniforms, try to mingle in with the civilian population, but strike out at other armies. They have considerably less legal standing than the other catagories, at least under US law (reference: US Supreme Court case ex parte Quirin ). These are the people being held at Guatanamo.

It's important that we *not* treat terrorists, spies, and other illegal combatants the same as we treat legal combatants. If we treated them the way you seem to think we should, it lowers the bar for civilized warfare (oximoron, I know). There has to be a reason for armies to wear uniforms and operate openly, otherwise things would quickly degenerate more than they have. Besides, if someone chooses to hide among the civilian population, putting them at more risk, then he should pay a higher price when he's caught.

And note that I said "US law". I realize international law, such as the Geneva Convention (to which the US is a signatory) doesn't have the same distinction. But, so far as I know, there's nothing stopping us from having this distinction. If there were, and we really were violating a treaty, I'm sure the Senate would've put a stop to it long ago. Since they're the ones who ratify treaties, it would be in their best interests to make sure the executive branch was playing by their rules. You can't tell me there isn't one Senator who wouldn't've raised a fuss (a certain one from Conneticut, now running for his Party's nomination for President, comes to mind).

Re:Cold comfort

[GreyPoopon]

Do you really think he feels better after 16 months in the federal pokey to hear the feds say "Oops... sorry about that. Friends?"

Would you have rather they not admitted the mistake at all? They could have chosen to do that given that his sentence was completed. Of course it would have been much better if they'd never made the mistake in the first place -- I stated that in my previous post. But I'm sure he feels better than he would have had they *not* admitted their mistake, given that he knew they were making a mistake all along.

Re:Cold comfort

[Stephan Schulz]

The only thing about all of those linked stories is... they aren't American citizens being held in Guantanamo. However you feel about their detention in Cuba (of all places!), it really has no relevance to the post about due process. Non-American citizens have no inherant rights to a speedy (or any) trial in America.

Universal declaration of Human Rights:

[...]

• Article 9.

  No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

• Article 10.

  Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

...

Re:Cold comfort

[Brendan Byrd]

That's akin to singing "Look on the Bright Side of Life" while hanging on a cross.

Re:Cold comfort

[Brendan Byrd]

I could follow this up with an "In Soviet Russia" joke, but that would just be too easy.

Re:Cold comfort

[GreyPoopon]

then tell me what a "tremendous opportunity" it was.

I was speaking in relative terms. Of course it totally stinks that this happened to him. And without any admission of guilt from the government, it pretty much guaranteed that he would only get very low paying jobs for most of the rest of his career. But if he chooses to take advantage of the opportunity he now has, he can not only clear his name, but potentially "punish" the people who wrongfully imprisoned him in the first place while at the same time reducing the financial impact of not having a job.

Re:Cold comfort

[GreyPoopon]

I kind of figured this guy was just being sarcastic. I hope so anyway.

No, I wasn't. Sorry. :-) But I was thinking in relative terms. It would have been best if he'd never been penalized or gone to court at all. Since that obviously can't happen, he at least now has an opportunity to offset some of his misfortune.

He can't even go after the company, probably for several reasons, but primarily because they are gone.

Actually, that probably depends on whether any statements made by individuals of the company contributed to his wrongful imprisonment. If it can be shown that false statements (about damages, etc) were given to the prosecution by individuals at his former place of employment, not only could he sue whatever company bought the assets, but he could probably go after the individuals who made the statements. And finally, he can definitely go after the government for wrongful imprisonment.

None of this is going to make full restitution for what he has experienced, but at least he can take advantage of the government admitting their error and try to collect on the mistake.

Re:Cold comfort

[GreyPoopon]

Heck, what opportunity would you be thinking about after being a$s raped for about a year?

I'm not sure why half the responders think that I was somehow in favor of him going to prison in the first place. Obviously, I'm not. What I'm in favor of is the position he is now in because the government has amitted they made a mistake. Prior to that admission, he was a convicted felon with no job, debts, lousy references and a horrible experience in the courts and prison. Put together, he's nearly guaranteed to be exempt from all but the most mundane of jobs. Now he has the opportunity to remove "convicted felon" and debts form the list against him. And there is a good possibility that he can rake in enough to prevent him from having to go job hunting, too.

It's not like I'd want to go through what he went through, but since what has happened can't be undone, at least this is a better situation than before.

Re:Cold comfort

[Fat Casper]

They should if we're the ones detaining them, and we truly believe our laws are just. Deport them or charge them, but holding them indefinitely is wrong.

How are we detaining them? Did they get hauled off to jail after traffic stops? Did riot cops grab them for chanting "death to America" in some downtown? I cannot understand why so many people think our civilian judicial system in any way applies here.

The people held in Cuba are not US citizens. They were captured in battle against our forces and their allies, but are not, however, POWs. They were combatants, yes, but what army were they in? What flag did they follow? We could not give them POW status even if we wanted to; what government would we report their status to? We never recognised the Taliban, and Al'Quaeda never even claimed to be a government. There is no one for us to turn them over to.

These people were captured in action by the military. Unlike most of the rest of the world, the US military doesn't arrest people. It is entirely seperate from our criminal justice system. The detainees are not going to be turned over to prosecutors, because that is not why the military detained them. They surrendered rather than be killed, and because our soldiers are really nice guys they agreed to take them into custody. They don't get the protected status of POWs, though. How can they even be released? Whose embassy is the military supposed to drop them off at, for God's sake? They weren't soldiers, but illegal combatants. They aren't prisoners, but detainees. They won't be held until the war's end, but indefinitely.

Re:Cold comfort

[Fat Casper]

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

In what way is being captured on a battlefield considered arbitrary arrest, detention or exile? Would you rather that the US Army refuse to take prisoners?

Re:Cold comfort

[Geekbot]

I really don't see what you mean about going after a company that bought assets from his former company.
Just because someone bought assets from a company doesn't mean they are responsible for their debts does it? Unless the company was bought out in which case I guess there might be some claim. I think he'd be better off claiming the new company is really the old company just with a new name as a way to dodge creditors.

Did the representatives of the company admit to perjury regarding the crimes? So far I think it's just the prosecution that has admitted any error.

And while it might be right, I think he'd be nuts to go after a government who just locked him away for 16 months for "tattling" on his old company.

Re:Cold comfort

[Stephan Schulz]

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

In what way is being captured on a battlefield considered arbitrary arrest, detention or exile? Would you rather that the US Army refuse to take prisoners?

Recent joke in rec.humor.funny (rephrased):

Discussion of the Iraq war in heaven:

Alexander the Great: "If I only had some of those C130 supply planes, I certainly would have conquered India!"
Frederik the Great: "Wow, with some of those M1A tanks I would have won the 7 years war in weeks!"
Napoleon: "Yes, and if I had had FOX News, nobody would ever have heard about Russia!"

Or, in other words, read how some of thes people have been taken "on the battlefield". And even if we assume that the arrest was legal, the detention certainly is not.

Also note that people have all the rights in the declaration of human rights, including those in article 10, which you conveniently deleted.

Re:Cold comfort

[GreyPoopon]

Unless the company was bought out in which case I guess there might be some claim.

This is what I was getting at, although a quick attempt to reach their website seems to indicate that they really did just dry up and blow away. Any purchasing company would have at least placed in a redirect.

I think he'd be better off claiming the new company is really the old company just with a new name as a way to dodge creditors.

Yeah, probably -- unless it was clear that a previously unrelated company did the buying.

Did the representatives of the company admit to perjury regarding the crimes?

Not that I'm aware of, although I'd like to see the contents of the motion filed by Mr. Cheng to see if the detailed explanation of the error included references to not completely accurate statements made by Tornado Development. The original article about his prosecution leads me to believe that the procecution may have been "willingly" misled.

And while it might be right, I think he'd be nuts to go after a government who just locked him away for 16 months for "tattling" on his old company.

Well, he was pretty much already doing that by appealing even after his sentence was complete. The fact that the gov has admitted guilt pretty much begs him to go after them.

Re:Cold comfort

[lanswitch]

There should be no release, and no trial, until the war is concluded.

There should be no JUSTICE until the war is won?

do something that makes the suits look bad...

[spitefulcrow]

and get thrown in jail? At least they admitted their error on this one. If someone pointed a flaw out in a system I was ultimately responsible for, I'd have him fix it and give him a bonus or something.

Re:do something that makes the suits look bad...

[mindaktiviti]

My brother's friend realized an error in a *very* big company in Toronto. He worked as a purchaser and managed to save the company something around 6 million dollars because of some screwed up process that they used. What did the company do? They told him this: "You broke company policy, don't do it again." Not all companies want to be well run apparently, maybe his company is one of 'em.

After sixteen months!?

[Midnight Thunder]

According to the article it was only he served 16 months, in fedral prison, that the government decided it was in error. I hope the guy gets some sort of compensation. 16 months for someone who was not guilty of a crime is too long.

Re:After sixteen months!?

[fenix down]

Well considering all people that get released after 10 or so years on death row without even the apolog... sorry... "admission of error" this guy got, I think he's already been compensated.

Re:After sixteen months!?

[chriso11]

16 months for someone who was not guilty of a crime is too long.

Not according to Ashcroft.

Re:After sixteen months!?

[Rick the Red]

And people wonder why I oppose the death penalty.

Re:After sixteen months!?

[micromoog]

Um, no. Just because some people got screwed more, that doesn't mean this guy didn't get screwed.

Re:After sixteen months!?

[orthogonal]

16 months for someone who was not guilty of a crime is too long.

Not according to Ashcroft.

Note to mods: despite appearences, the parent post should not be modded "+1 Funny"; it shoudl be modded "+1 Insightful".

Re:After sixteen months!?

[MrLint]

Compensation, im smelling civil lawsuit blood in the water. The fact that the Da screwed up, but Tornado must have pushed it also to deflect blame from themselves. I wonder how many false statements the made to the FBI? There is potential for some nasty fall out here boys and girls.

Re:After sixteen months!?

[ratamacue]

There is no compensation for losing 16 months of your life. He could be awarded all the money in the world and it wouldn't even begin to make up for what they've stolen from him.

I call this a massive failure of government, and one which is a direct result of an overly complex, ambiguous, highly exploitable system of law, i.e. big government.

Well I'm glad

[The Munger]

I'm sure most of us have heard of this story by now. It was also covered on The Register the other day. If I were a customer, I'd certainly want to know about this kind of hole. Does anyone think he caused any grief? He gave notice to the right people, and they still didn't listen. This is like Microsoft ignoring security holes - and we've all heard those stories.

I think he did the right thing. The only people to lose out appear to be the incompetents who are now forced to fix their mistake.

Re:Well I'm glad

[deadmongrel]

Does anyone think he caused any grief?
The "Customers" should be happy that they were warned of the security hole.
"no proof that McDanel intended to impair the system's integrity" How would you impair a system by sending out emails? Wait a minute shouldn't spammers be guilty of the same? and they have to wait 16 months to find this while he was "pounded in the arse". Just great.

Re:Well I'm glad

[The Munger]

I agree with you. He didn't cause anyone any grief apart from a bunch of munchkins who needed a kick in the behind. I think it's disgraceful that he was put behind bars in the first place.

Re:Well I'm glad

[El Cubano]

This is like Microsoft ignoring security holes - and we've all heard those stories.

Yeah, except Microsoft wouldn't have you tried as a criminal and incarcerated .... Oh wait.

Precedence and the future?

[Jonah Hex]

Even tho IANAL, I know precedent is much of what law is. What does this really mean for the future?

In a motion filed Tuesday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald L. Cheng said his office made "an error" in its prosecution against Bret McDanel.

Does this mean the case doesn't have the same "weight of precedence" (to put it in my own possibly incorrect terms) as a completed court case would? The U.S. Attorney, does it effect laws nationwide now?

Jonah Hex

Been there done that

[segment]

During his trial, prosecutors argued McDanel intentionally caused damage to Tornado's computer server by overloading it with too many messages and impaired the system's security by exposing its vulnerability to the public. A judge found him guilty of unauthorized access and sentenced him to 16 months in federal prison.

The problem with prosecutors is, they're quick to jump on a case and will do all sorts of stuff to get a conviction. I know because I've dealt with them and have been incarcerated for computer intrusion and electronics eavesdropping. While at trial, federal agents purjured themselves on the stand and got warnings. A federal agent stated "Mr. XXX is wanted for breaking into NSA, FBI, CAI, and Military machines... But he is not being charged with that right now" ... Another so called FBI computer expert stated he didn't understand what an IP address was (no bullshitting as my case and the transcripts are public record). My ISP, my phone company testified I hadn't used the phone, nor was I online at the time it happened. Now if that is not cause for reasonable doubt I'll go on...

Upon my arrest the agents stated they had been to my previous address of which I hadn't lived at for YEARS. So you mean to tell me, that if you think I attacked some machine, where did you get my information from. If it were via IP they would have come straight to my address via my ISP's logs. Now they had firewall logs with none of my information whatsoever, and they had a sniffer log which recorded the entire breakin. On the sniffer log, nothing shows up remotely all you see are mail connections, then an attack coming from the same host the sniffer log was on.

Local attack then right? Try explaining that to a jury of 40-50 year old comp-phobic people who's favorite tv show is Judge Judy.

I was the first case in the Southern District to go to trial, and was told if I take it to trial I would face 10 years. I was offered 1year, then 6 months, then a 6 month split 3 in jail 3 under house arrest. I still fought it. Feds took this as something arrogant, I fought for my rights. Now given I was no angel growing up (sold drugs, stole cars you name early 90'ish) I swallowed it as karma. Appeal? Sure to go through the same thing? Wasn't worth it for me, the impact of the trial is enough to drain you, financial, mentally (if your weak).

First thing the feds thing coming into my house... High five each other... "Yes we got sil from AntiOffline..." what a scam.

Its nice to know however the DA was quickly promoted and a whole new cybersecurity *cough political bullshit* department was thrown up in NYC

So after this post... Let's see how long it will be before my PO calls up and automagically violates me for some bullshit. Meaning I spoke in a manner the feds didn't like. Fuck a fed

Re:Been there done that

[jeffkjo1]

I call BS. If your case is public record, link us to it.

Re:Been there done that

[GNUman]

In his post he hints about this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/20547.ht ml

Re:Been there done that

[Courageous]

While at trial, federal agents purjured themselves on the stand and got warnings.

This is a FELONY. If it is really a matter of the written record, as it would be if it were conducted in COURT, **PRESS CHARGES**.

C//

Re:Been there done that

[Desert Raven]

Um, just because it's public record doesn't mean it's online.

You have heard of paper, haven't you?

Re:Been there done that

[segment]

Sure you have a couple million to spare? The feds have deep pockets, and you really don't want them on your ass. Nor will your friends like you much when the feds go to there house and so on and so forth. I lost the case s'all the matters for public record, me on the other hand I don't harbor bad feelings I look at is as politically motivated nothing more. As for fighting, its a losing battle. I had contacted staff at the ACLU, and they wanted to make a public thing about it, I on the other hand didn't want some free sil bullshit so I declined. EPIC? Never returned a call. It's history to all but me.

Re:Been there done that

[j_dot_bomb]

Scary post

Re:Been there done that

[Really Strange]

Couple of obstacles to that, though.

Criminal charges? Following an investigation (probably by the same agency whose agent purjured his/herself), the ADA would have to prosecute which, IMHO, s/he is unlikely to do to a fellow government law-agency related person.

Civil charges? Need the money to pay for the investigation with some expectation of a tangible result.

Tough case.

(IANAL)

Re:Been there done that

[chgros]

Um, just because it's public record doesn't mean it's online.
You have heard of paper, haven't you?

A link doesn't have to be online. It could be a reference number, a place/date/whatever, or something of this kind.

Re:Been there done that

[Courageous]

Criminal charges?s/he is unlikely to do to a fellow government law-agency related person.

*shrug*

Sue. And *MAKE* the them.

C//

Re:Been there done that

[segment]

yup and anyone who knows me knows I don't hide from no one nor do I hold back on saying what I feel. Understand?

Re:Been there done that

[Uma Thurman]

It's a mistake to give a rats ass about anybody's security but your own. Unless you either own the computer or were directly ordered by your boss to secure the computer, it's not your business to care if it's secure or not.

Don't go around jiggling door handles, and the cops won't bust you for breaking and entering.

Re:Been there done that

[hughk]

You should have had a better lawyer.

I believe you. I have certainly come across officers who routinely lie in court. Some law men feel themselves above the law but see someone who they feel that it is "their turn to go down". The victim concerned has probably committed a number of minor offences but this time are guilty of nothing more than being a PITA to law officers.

So law officers perjure themselves, knowing that even if their falsehoods are discovered they are written off as nothing more than excessive zeal and at worst they get a 'talking to'.

Regrettably, current legislation makes it remarkably easy to get someone who uses a computer professionally thrown in jail. You have namap on your computer, oh you are possibly guilty of cyber-breakins. Some idiot at the local military base has downloaded a trojan so that can now become terrorism.

You have a (clothed) photo of a young girl on your computer - it doesn't matter that you have it with the rest of her family and she is your niece, sorry you are now a suspected pedophile.

Either way, eventually the charges may never be brought. However, you face confiscation of computer equipment, possibly even a ban like Mitnick. You can even end up inside waiting.

Re:Been there done that

[poot_rootbeer]

I'm sorry, I have trouble feeling any sympathy for someone who was unjustly prosecuted and chose to roll over and die rather than fight for what's right. Injustice took place, and it could happen again, because YOU let it happen.

Not that I would take your account of the events at face value, either. If the facts were as one-sided as you present them, it would have taken a conspiracy between the federal agents, prosecutors, judges, jurors, and your own defense attorney to result in prison time.

Re:Been there done that

[jred]

I'm sorry, I have trouble feeling any sympathy for someone who was unjustly prosecuted and chose to roll over and die rather than fight for what's right. Injustice took place, and it could happen again, because YOU let it happen.

Shows how much you know. Some people don't have the funds to fight the system (which he mentioned). Some people have families to think about. "Mommy, where's Daddy, and why do we live in a shelter?" "Daddy's in jail, honey. He tried to fight the Man and we went broke doing it."

Wrong use of the laws

[chrispyman]

If I'm not mistaken, the intention of these laws was to lock up the so-called "script kiddies" and such who maliciously broke into and destroyed/exploited computer systems. This guy just published a vulnerability to the company's users, and while it may have damaged their reputation, they certainly didn't have much to begin with after not fixing that flaw.

Re:Wrong use of the laws

[HeghmoH]

This is a gigantic problem with lawmakers; they create laws with a particular spirit, but with a letter that is much more broad. These morons don't realize that local prosecutors don't give a shit about the spirit of the law, they simply want to use the letter of the law to put people in jail when they think these people deserve it.

Congress needs to stop trusting prosecutors, and spell everything out if they really have the intentions they claim.

Or, tin-foil hat mode, they actually mean to do business this way, and use overbroad laws to turn everybody into criminals so that all undesirables can be put in jail without all the mess and expense of an investigation, evidence, a trial, etc.

not trade secrets?

[fireteller2]

Boy this sure is a scary precedent. The obvious effect regardless of the end result is that lawyers will tell their clients not to expose security holes. Good for the government for admitting the mistake, but I do believe the damage is done.

What I want to know is if I expose a weakness in someone else's code, how is it that I'm the one 'impairing the functioning' of the code? I didn't put the security flaw in there. However, I can see a bit of an argument that you are communicating trade secrets, why is that not the case the government took.

I guess well be seeing fewer fixes to insecure applications from now on.

fire

Re:not trade secrets?

[tuomoks]

Correct. How old is the saying kill the person who brings the bad news ? That way you can always blame somebody else even if the blame is on you. I learned it a long time ago and see it almost every day in business. Life is not fair but then who said it should be ??

Well...

[Short Circuit]

Well, for one thing, they should eliminate his balance owed for staying in prison. They don't just hold you there, they charge you rent and for supplies.

Next, they should pay him a lump sum for all of the money he would probably have earned if he hadn't been prosecuted and imprisoned.

Next, they should refund him lawyer fees.

Unfortunately, I've never heard of the federal government having to pay punitive damages. I'm not even sure they've ever had to compensate the wrongly imprisoned.

Re:Well...

[Rick the Red]

I'm not even sure they've ever had to compensate the wrongly imprisoned.

Hell, if they kill you, they don't even have to give your body to your family. If they kill you and then find out you were innocent, I doubt your family would get so much as an offical "We're sorry."

Re:Well...

[Lord Kano]

Another fun thing was that Tornado initially claimed $300,000 in losses from the incident. This is important because the FBI will not get involved with anything under $50,000. This figure was later reduced (much, much later) to $9,000.

Could Tornado execs be brought up on charges of Obstruction of justice? Lying to and/or misleading the FBI during the course of an investigation could be seen as doing just that.

LK

Re:Well...

[Geekbot]

It was my understanding that the federal government will not be responsible for wrongful imprisonment. And since these guys lied to get him locked away for ratting out his old company, I wouldn't want to see what they'd do to somebody who was putting them in the news for this kind of thing and taking them to court for $$.

Re:Well...

[geomon]

Nice challenge, but they destroy evidence that could prove a persons innocense after they execute them.

Clears up a lot of loose ends.

In fact, there is a jurisdiction somewhere in the US that is fighting the family of an executed prisoner over evidence the family claims will exonerate him.

If there were more proof of falsely executed prisoners reaching the media, the whole house of cards would come crashing down around supporters of the death penalty.

With the exception of the USSC Chief Justice. Reinquist believes that if an innocent person is executed it is still an acceptable price to pay for "justice".

A better challenge, therefore, would be to ask whether *you* would like to be that "acceptable price"?

Well would ya punk!?!

Win the battle, lose the war

[divide overflow]

This seems like another example of what I would call a Pyrrhic victory. As long as the system can throw someone in jail for 16 months for doing something both legal and defensible then I see little reason to celebrate our freedoms.

Re:Win the battle, lose the war

[Dhalka226]

If you've got an infallible justice system in your back pocket, I'm sure everybody is dying to hear.

Re:Win the battle, lose the war

[divide overflow]

If you've got an infallible justice system in your back pocket, I'm sure everybody is dying to hear.

Tell that to the guy who spent 16 months in prison waiting for someone to figure out their mistake. Then think about how *you'd* feel if you were that guy and some idiot told you to just get over it 'cause mistakes happen. Then think about how something like this rarely seems to happen to people who have the millions of dollars it takes to make the U.S. justice system work for them.

A lot of people read about this trial right here on slashdot and knew it wasn't right. It's way past time that someone actually did something about it. So don't give me your patronizing bullshit. If it doesn't make you mad then it should.

Re:Win the battle, lose the war

[sjames]

I think we all understand that no human construct is infallible.

However, it is fairly clear that the system's not even functioning as well as it should (and must). There are several causes.

There is a lack of real checks and balances against prosecutors. They may be checked by judjes and jurors, but other than loosing a trial (that they would have lost or never had in the first place otherwise) there is little to penalize overzealous behaviour.

It's gotten to the point where when I do watch the news, it is routine to hear of people charged inappropriatly to their actions. Accidents (possibly negligent) involving strangers frequently result in charges that clearly require malice and premeditation. Judges should throw that out before the trial even begins (since even taking the prosecutor's word for everything won't support the charge) but it doesn't seem to happen.

It seems that many are quite aware of this, and use 'charge inflation' as a bargaining tool to get a defendant to plead to a reletively minor offens. Some say so explicitly in less guarded moments. The defendant's guilt or innocense has nothing to do with it, they just want the conviction for their resume, any way they can get it.

That would do a lot to prevent the problems in the first place, but no system is perfect, so we will still occasionally discover the innocence of someone serving time. Now we get to the next part, reparations. First, the person needs to be released as soon as humanly possible, not kept on ice for a few months while the prosecutor tries to stonewall a hearing for release. Second, the person needs a public appology at least as loud as the crowing when he was convicted. Then there's compensation. Start with the question "how much would we have to pay an ordinary person in his position to be willingly subjected to this?" and go from there.

Of course, there's reform of the prisons themselves. Even when the person is guilty, subjecting them to prison in it's current form only makes them worse when they get back out. It also compounds the damage done to an incarcerated innocent. Nothing will remove the damage, but if prison at least strived to maintain an air of civility we could at least avoid inflicting lifelong mental and emotional scars. We might also manage to teach the guilty how they should behave in society and that there are distinct benefits to behaving that way.

Or we could just go on as we are. Soon enough, the ex-cons will outnumber the rest of the population and they'll rip society a new one.

We do have freedoms to cherish...

[Atmchicago]

We have to celebrate the freedom to go into jail whenever we [don't] want!

Equal Punishment

[Lead Butthead]

For the prosecutors that willfully witheld evidence or exaggerate seriousness of the crimes to get convictions, lets jail them for the same length of time and to the same facilities as their victims. Should their victims not survive the incarceration, neither should the prosecutors.

Re:Equal Punishment

[Lord Kano]

For the prosecutors that willfully witheld evidence or exaggerate seriousness of the crimes to get convictions, lets jail them for the same length of time and to the same facilities as their victims.

Not good enough for me. I'm thinking an automatic 20 to life. But, since prosecutors are lawyers and so are the vast majority of those who write our laws, it'll never happen.

LK

Better than 3 years

[SHEENmaster]

before the damn trial even begins.

When talking about a computer is punishable by more years in prison than manslaughter, the system is wrong by any damn standards.

Can he sue for wrongful prosecution?

Prosecution Did What?

[dbCooper0]

After the prosecution revised the court materials, they admitted there was no proof that McDanel intended to impair the system's integrity

Where I come from that's called "tampering with evidence"...

For those that didn't RTFA

[ekephart]

The 16 months that he served constitutes the entire term of his sentence.

"During his trial, prosecutors argued McDanel intentionally caused damage to Tornado's computer server by overloading it with too many messages and impaired the system's security by exposing its vulnerability to the public. A judge found him guilty of unauthorized access and sentenced him to 16 months in federal prison."

It's sad that there is not better review of cases in this country. Federal prosecuters should be held to the highest standards. (cough, ashcroft) This is why my friends that many (myself included) do not agree with the current implementation of the death penalty.

Apparently you know little of law

[segment]

You could request for a copy of my case from any legal library or any lawyer could have a copy of the transcripts of the case. PUBLIC RECORD.

My response to an article about the case. Again, I've spent so many sleepless days and nights over it, I don't even bother answering anyone's questions, being that the bottom line is I was convicted.

Re:Apparently you know little of law

[segment]

If I had to do it all again I would go right back to trial only this time I would let the ACLU media whore me around. Interesting situation I encountered was this kid named Danny from Canada. 20 years old arrested for 'Illegal Possession of Electronic Devices" or some odd shit like that. I read his entire casefile. His crime? He transpored 3 Sony Playstation 2's from Canada to Buffalo for his cousins. He also had a dime bag of marijuana in his car. Sentenced? 60 months. Its pitiful to hear about some of the shit that goes on because the mentality is, "Oh that would never happen that person has to be guilty."

Look I've worked at large corps, even Chemical Bank before it became Chemical/Manufacturers then Chase. I worked in the account reconciliation department, had access to accounts with MILLIONS not personal accounts business accounts. Never once did I think of doing anything. I've worked at a domain registrar who'd registered over the 1million mark. How easy would it have been to SELECT creditcard FROM WHERE NAME LIKE *; ? Never did I do anything wrong.

When I started AntiOffline it was extremely opposed to script kiddiots and malicious hacking, there is nothing there that glorifies malice. Yet the feds turn and say I did some stupid shit for fun, and made a juror of compilliterates believe it. Hell even I was confused by some of the crap they said in my trial. But like I said when I was younger I was no angel so I look at it as karma. Karma being I've sort of taken to Buddhism so what happened happened.

I hope he sues the bejeezus out of the government

[DigitalSpyder]

for damages and wrongful prosecution for millions and millions. Maybe then the government will learn from their mistakes in future.

The amount of money he could get for psychological damages from stress, physical damages (arising from stint in prison), ruining his career, etc. etc. could be very substantial. If he was raped in prison, god forbid, and can prove it, then the government could be in for a very big shafting (no pun intended).

Put yourself in this guys place. He did everything he could legally in this situation. Then he got sent to jail for it. Only to be told that he was sent to jail by ACCIDENT. What would you do?

Those lawyers should be made to....

[Geekbot]

give up their immortal soul.....
oh wait...
nevermind.

Re:too late

[AndroidCat]

Don't forget all the letters that say what a nice time he's having.

"Hi there, this is John Smith, prisoner 24601. Everything is fine I'm fine. I hope you are fine..."

(Oddly enough the letters from the next 340 prisoners are exactly the same except for the name and number. What are the odds!)

Lessig's comments

[DennisZeMenace]

Lawrence Lessig posted some interesting comments about this case in his blog.

DZM

A repeated pattern

[jdhutchins]

This just goes to further prove the pattern:

When it comes to computers, the people making laws and doling out punishment haven't the slightest clue what they're doing.

This is seen over and over, such as DMCA, proabbly parts of the Patriot act, this case, SCO, and I'm sure that there's thousands others.

Politicals (and lawyers) tend to be PHBs when it comes to computers. They know the buzzwords, as well as "Computer == Windows == Microsoft".

What we really need

[weston]

Actually, it could be tremendous opportunity... ...he now has amunition for lawsuits against both his former employer and the federal government... having said all of that, I believe the feds should hang their heads in shame for being overzealous and making the mistake in the first place

What about the opportunity for payback for overzealous prosecutors?

Sometimes after reading about cases like this, I wonder if there shouldn't be a law which says that if prosecutors over reach -- and especially if there's any evidence that they knowingly overstated their case, or presented any evidence or supporting testimony that wasn't factual -- they can be sent to prison.

Actually, it seems like there should be laws about this already, but IANAL. Anyone know if wrongfully convicted citizens can file criminal suit against prosecutors?

Re:What we really need

[Morosoph]

Actually, it seems like there should be laws about this already, but IANAL. Anyone know if wrongfully convicted citizens can file criminal suit against prosecutors?

False Imprisonment?

No - you can't..

[tuomoks]

Wrongfully convicted or even sued - eat it. The law is clear, if it is govenment or state you can't sue, you may get some compensation ( not required but.. ) like in Illinois - years in death row, yeah, here is $100K for that and have a nice day. Of course nobody will hire you, you can't get a business license, check you credit records ( covicts don't have credit records ), etc. because there is the truth that you were once convicted even innocent ( and no way to take back the records / published articles, all the flags in all the databases, etc ) - weird. But that's life and laws - people have voted so live with that. Or change it - vote for something else / some other politicans ( maybe you are now allowed - you just lost a couple of years voting ). And good luck.

Deja Vu

[neoThoth]

I actually submitted this when I first saw it (no I'm not bitter... yes i am..) but in my version I bring up two points.
1) Should/Will this man be compensated for his time in the pokey. How do you repay a man 16 months in prison? Granted I would have loved to have seen something on the books (e.g. precedent) to stick some real spammers in jail. Good thing this guy had a great attorney.
2) He had an excellent attorney. For those of you who don't know Jennifer Grannick she is one of the most knowledgable legal eagles out there. I see her every year at Blackhat and she's also known to have helped out on many of the most important pieces of Internet case law to date.

Re:Deja Vu

[Awptimus Prime]

Too bad her clients seem to end up in the pokey a lot!

U.S. Constitution says "person" not "citizen"

[Chris Burke]

Non-American citizens have no inherant rights to a speedy (or any) trial in America.

I would just like to call your attention to the fact that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the rights afforded by it only extend to citizens. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and the right to due process are granted to every person, not citizen. I don't know why people think otherwise, but it simply isn't true.

"Amendment V: [emphasis mine, as if you couldn't guess]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or publ ic danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

"No person". Not "no citizen". This is not accidental wording, either. The Constitution does refer to citizens in several places. Specifically in regards to those eligible to run for Congress or President, and in the various ammendments regarding the right to vote which is only guaranteed for citizens by the Constitution.

Here is a snippet from the 14th Ammendment that further illustrates the deliberate distinction between citizen and person:

"Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

The difference is made very clear here. A "citizen" is any "person" born or naturalized in the United States, "Citizens" thus clearly being a subset of "Persons". But the next sentence says that is in fact the superset, Persons, which cannot be denied due process or equal protection.

In other words, it doesn't make a lick of difference if those held in Guantanamo are citizens or not. Until election day, anyway, and then the citizens being held illegally can bitch to the non-citizens being held illegally that they're really being abused because they are being denied their right to vote as well.

By the way, I would think it would seem only natural that non-citizens still get the right to free speech, due process, etc. What kind of "freedom" do we Americans believe in that you have to be a naturalized citizen to get? Are these not "inalienable human rights"? Or is it "freedom for us and others only if we feel like it"? Actually, the more I think about it, the more it disturbs me that some would believe that a non-citizen could simply be locked up, his posessions taken, and his life ended all without a trial, and this would be okay.

Re:I hope he sues the bejeezus out of the governme

[red floyd]

But then he'd be convicted of supporting terrorism! After all, suing the government is obviously an Evil Terrorist Act!!!!

How about criticism of the original Judge?

[mc6809e]

The feds are supposed to be a bit aggressive on the side of prosecuting, just like defenders are supposed to be aggressive in their defence.

The real problem is with the judge.

Re:How about criticism of the original Judge?

[innocent_white_lamb]

The feds are supposed to be a bit aggressive on the side of prosecuting, just like defenders are supposed to be aggressive in their defence.

Actually, no.

The State can never lose, because the State's "interest" is (theoretically) the truth and administration of justice.

Therefore, "aggressive" is not an actual requirement of the State's prosecutors, but rather the search for the truth.

At least, that's supposed to be how it works. In practice, though....

Re:How about criticism of the original Judge?

[Helpless Will]

Yeah, it's that "in practice" bit that's the real drag as District Attorneys seem to campaign on their number of successful convictions, high profile convictions, etc.

Prosecutors et al, learn all to rapidly that it's in their best interests to go for a conviction and prosecute the best potential candidate when there isn't a preponderance of evidence and there are multiple suspects.

What would the voters think if someone wasn't punished after all?

Just my opinion,

-H

dilemna

[segment]

An entire document has been written and distributed abour my case throughout federal offices with my name changed, and I laughed when my friend (who happens to be let's say be in the know) showed it to me. Purpose of my case from my perspective? Politics. It's all about money nothing more and when federal agencies need more funding come crunch time what do they do?

In recent years, The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York has been in the forefront of investigating and prosecuting cybercrime and intellectual property crimes. These include the arrest of Kazakhstan nationals in London in connection with the attempted extortion of Bloomberg, L.P.; the prosecution of computer security specialist Jesus Oquendo for computer hacking and electronic eavesdropping; the prosecution of a law firm paralegal for the electronic theft of a litigation trial plan; the prosecution of Raymond Torricelli for intruding into NASA computers; the theft of proprietary business plans belonging to MasterCard and the attempted sale of those plans to representatives of Visa; and the first prosecution of Internet sports gambling operations.

Uh I did time with Soricelli who happens to be a moronic packetkiddiot from IRC knows nothing about comps. I asked him little things about networking (BGP, RIP, packet sequencing, tunneling) and he knew nothing. He pleaded guilty because he supposedly broke into a CIA honeypot and his uncle was the investigated New Jersey Senator. The other guy is obvious. So out of those mentioned as the case for building this CHIPS unit, how many case were prosecuted really. One. Mine's was the first to go to trial in my disctrict, yet the gov hypes things up as if they're facing an epidemic in my district. Shady business.

Now to tell you some more little nitpicky things, that weren't allowed to come out in trial because the prosecutor objected and got his wish.. A plane ticket showing I was en route to San Jose from New York at the time on of the attacks occurred. Pretty difficult for me to hack while in the friendly skies. Secondly, I had a mail.com account for mailing list stuff (SecurityFocus, NANOG, etc) that was accessed from Indiana, England, and a slew of other places I had never been. Being its was a mail.com account I never bothered strong passwords. Thirdly, the company owners testified they left their username/password combos on PostIt notes attached to their machines.

I could go on for days with shit, but it's useless, as stated most people have that "Well he's guily because the feds say so.", or "he must be guilty because he's on the 'hacker scene': attitude. To be honest I'm not mad, saddned by the entire thing, but I've managed to learn 4 new languages, a shit load of stuff about the financial markets from White Collar trixters who defrauded companies for millions. And I managed to take some time and focus on myself, study spirituality lightly etal. So I'm not mad, just saddened

Re:dilemna

[Christopher Bibbs]

This is Slashdot, actually reading something is rare enough. Now you expect comprehension? Sheesh.

Is it cold in here?

[jhoffoss]

I think hell just froze over. Or at least got a good frost.

Reversal

[phorm]

I'd say that, if anything, this case should now have a weight of precedence in the opposite direction...

A Mistake, a Ruined Life

[ausoleil]

"It is on this principle that the government confesses error in this case," Cheng [the prosecutor] said.

That's all well and good, but how is this going to help this guy get his life back?

Are they going to renumerate his legal fees?

His lost wages?

His lost reputation?

Undoubtedly no.

The guy is ruined from a financial standpoint, unless of course he was a rich man to begin with. He enters an incredibly tight job market in the IT industry with a raltively ruined resume thanks to overzealous prosecution, and a record as a felon. Good luck finding a job -- given the way HR departments work, he wouldn't get past their "due diligence" background check.

All for a "mistake."

Difference between two articles

[pigah]

It seems odd--the securityfocus article about the original prosecution suggests he was convicted of revealing a hole in the security system, while the MSNBC article says he was convicted for what appears to be a denial of service (causing a crash). It appears as thought the technical and speech issues are not really being discussed in the press

Re:I hope he sues the bejeezus out of the governme

[Cederic]

>> If he was raped in prison, god forbid, and can prove it, then the government could be in for a very big shafting (no pun intended).

With all due respect, just what the fuck does that have to do with his innocence or guilt? I'd seriously hope he has legal comeback should he get sexually assaulted in jail whether he's Snow White or Jack the Ripper.

Did you really mean to imply that raping people in prison is perfectly acceptable if they were actually guilty?

~Cederic

Well our fore fathers fall into that category

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

We have come such a long way. This country got its founding to a great extent (not entirely) from the civilian illegal combatants that harrassed the resident British forces. It seems ingenuous to glorify them then turn around and condem others for the same tactic. But maybe your people were around here when mine were fighting the British.

I think what the Government is doing on so many fronts is playing loose and free with the law for their own ends. This is very dangerous, very dangerous to us and our freedoms and what our people fought for so long ago.

I am reminded of that quote from movie "Beckett" where an advisor told the King's friend, Beckett, something like "always tell the King what he Should do but never what he Can do". It seems we have that problem now.

Re:Well our fore fathers fall into that category

[corbettw]

"We have come such a long way. This country got its founding to a great extent (not entirely) from the civilian illegal combatants that harrassed the resident British forces. It seems ingenuous [sic] to glorify them then turn around and condem [sic] others for the same tactic. But maybe your people were around here when mine were fighting the British."

Wow, do you have a skewed understanding of history (that, or what exactly comprises "illegal combatants"). Pretty much all of the colonial militias not only wore uniforms and were organized into a formal heirarchy, they also did not hide among the civilian populace. Even the ones who used guerilla tactics, or who didn't wear uniforms all the time, didn't hide among civilians.

Comparing our forefathers with the murderous thugs of the Taliban and al Queda does not strengthen your case, and it sullies the memory of *real* freedom fighters.

Re:I hope he sues the bejeezus out of the governme

[DigitalSpyder]

I think you completely misunderstood the point of my post and are just trying to be inflammatory but I'll reply under the assumption that you were not.

No, my point was that in a CIVIL court (as in, not CRIMINAL) if it was found that he was wrongfully imprisoned that he can sue the Government for damages. Damages meaning compensation for suffering he may have incurred arising from wrongful imprisonment.

Re:Troll:Seth Fink!LE!stein not Seth Fink!EL!stein

[orthogonal]

Trolls gotcha. "Seth FinkLEstein" is a troll, faking "Seth FinkELstein".
The real Seth never pretends to be a lawyer.

Thanks. I did miss that.

Still, I think we can assume the original poster isn't a lawyer either.

What has happened to LIBERTY in the USA ?

[Taco Cowboy]

Looks like the United States of America has lost its shine.

Anyone in the US of A can be officially harrassed by the government (prosecutors are from the gummint, right?) and then after so much harrassment, the harrassers said that they had no case.

So what about the victim ?

What about the ordeal the victim (or victims) had to go through ?

All the time lost, all the sufferings, all the agonies, and the ruined reputation, what about all these ??

In the USA, many people think that money can buy everything. But no matter how much money that poor guy can claim from the gummint, nothing can replace the agonies and time lost and sufferings, and the really painful lesson of being a good guy.

In other words, in USA, there's no such thing as LIBERTY anymore !

What a hellish thing to go thru !

[Taco Cowboy]

I read what you have written, and I understand them all, because I had a similar experience.

I was lucky, that the public prosecutor was a dork, and because I know people in really high places.

All I did was nothing - in a discussion, I laid out a _hypothetical-case-of-a-possibility-electronic-bre aking_ and then someone snitched on me.

All hell broke loose, and I had to face what you had gone thru, - sans the sentencing thingy, - but all in all, looking back, I spent more than 500K in attorney's fee alone.

That doesn't count the time lost in the entire meaningless hoopla, plus the agonies, anguish, comfusion, and ultimately, frustrations that have caused me and many of my friends/co-workers etc.

Now I don't live in USA anymore. Why should I continue to pay tax in a country which prosecuted its own citizen for NOTHING ?

My advise to all those who have been wrongly prosecuted - get out, and get out now !

If you stay, you will be paying tax to the same government which employs those damn bastards who do nothing but trampling on other people's rights and liberty.

Contrary to popular believe, USA is no longer a place which believes in LIBERTY.

There's no liberty in USA anymore, and that's the sad, cold truth.

Even if he's an asshole ...

[Taco Cowboy]

What you are trying to do is to make TWO WRONGS A RIGHT.

Two Wrongs Can Never Become One Right.

Even if the guy is the world's foremost Asshole Cum Laude, he shouldn't be put through this type of shits.

What the gummint had done was wrong, and those public prosecutors (persecutors !!) should have their nuts cut out and fried for what they have done.

We don't, and SHOULD NEVER condone any abuse of the law, and what the gummint has done in this case, and in many other cases in the USA, are outright wholesale abuse of the laws.

In case you forgot, the BILL OF RIGHTS protects ALL, even the ASSHOLES are being protected.

If the Americans don't protect themselves, they deserve to be abused by the very government they have elected.

Re:I hope he sues the bejeezus out of the governme

[Cederic]

>> suffering he may have incurred arising from wrongful imprisonment

I'll say again: If he's been raped in prison, I hope he gets redress whether he's been wrongfully imprisoned or not. The correctness of his presence in prison is completely tangential to the wrongness of being raped.

~Cederic