Windows Source Code Seller Arrested

prostoalex writes "New York Times says William O. Genovese Jr., 27, of Meriden, Conn. has been arrested by the Feds for selling source code for Windows NT and Windows 2000 operating systems. It's not perfectly clear whether Genovese was selling the portion of the code that was leaked earlier this year or if he had access to other portions of Windows source code. The timing, though, coincides, as the code leaked in February, the same month NYT claims the entrepreneur obtained the source code."

Comments

United States

[Scoria]

It's not perfectly clear whether Genovese was selling the portion of the code that was leaked earlier this year

It's not perfectly clear whether Genovese was selling [the code] at all. Innocent until proven guilty, despite what our current administration would have you believe.

Re:United States

[Scoria]

More accurate (and perhaps more timeless)

Innocent until proven guilty, despite what our newspaper editors or television reporters would have you believe.

Sensational sells...

You make an excellent point; however, it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish government propaganda from that which is created by our popular media. Our "free press" no longer questions, and our independent media is often suppressed by the prodigious corporate entities.

In fact, one might compare our popular media to an "objective review service" that publishes only corporate press releases. Everything else, such as excessive coverage of the Laci Peterson case, is merely a diversion. But, as your statement implies, it is much more profitable than practicing objective journalism.

Re:United States

[dekemoose]

Let me break this down for you:
Source code is stolen
Individual sells source code that was stolen
Individual ges busted

The fact that you can get the stolen code somewhere else doesn't make it okay to sell it, even pre-DMCA, pre-PATRIOT, pre-PICK-YOUR-SHITTY-LEGISLATION. He F'ed up. He will now most likely receive a far greater ass reaming than is deserved because he is the current available target, and they don't have anyone else. That sucks, but see my previous point: he F'ed up.

As for the investigation, would you prefer they took everything from his house, regardless of whether they felt it was relevant to the case? Or would you then piss and moan that they violated his rights by overstepping the bounds of the investigation?

Honour amongst thieves

[NiceGuyUK]

If there's one thing worse than someone stealing source code and spreading it over the internet, its someone who didn't do the hard work of obtaining it that tries to profit from the actions of others. While I don't condone the original source theft, I hold far greater contempt for those that try and cash in on it.

Disgusting

[quigonn]

I find it disgusting that /. (and other news sites) publish the arrested person's full name. This person is not yet proven guilty, and still has a right for privacy and personal integrity - when a British newspaper published the names of convicted child molesters, lynch mobs formed to try to hunt down and kill those people. This should never happen, as it is totally against the concept of a modern constitutional state.

Re:Disgusting

[jmcmunn]

Why is this guy special? They can give your name and say you were the "alleged" murderer. Or you were "allegedly" invloved in some sort of crime.

Lets think about it, the terrorist watch list is nothing more than some "alleged" terrorists for the most part. Not all of them have actually been found guilty of anything. Some have of course, but not all.

So, no. You don't have to be proved guilty. He can of course sue the pants off everyone who ruins his reputation by filing a civil lawsuit or something if he turns out innocent and people have dragged him through the mud.

But if they released his full name you can bet they are pretty sure about this one.

Re:Disgusting

[Lord Byron II]

But if they released his full name you can bet they are pretty sure about this one. But that attitude is precisely the problem. First, our system is about "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", not "they are pretty sure" and second, that assumption is already tainting potential jurers in to believing the man is guilty long before the trial even begins.

Re:Disgusting

[blowdart]

How strange. It's perfectly within the "rights" (not that we have a written constitution that documents rights) of UK papers to print the names of those people who have been arrested and charged, except where they are under a certain age. This can, of course, cause problems, the most obvious ones being rape cases where the accuser keeps their anonymity even if is found the case has no merit or was malicious.

I assume you will be leaving the UK to find this halcyon modern consitutional state.

Re:Disgusting

[taxevader]

>

Unless you are a woman making false accusations of rape to try and make a quick buck. Ask Kobe Bryant, whose name has been dragged through the mud while the accuser remains protected, even after the charge was dismissed.

Re:Disgusting

[stinkpad]

Uh, wrong. This country (USA) was founded on the idea that rights are unalianable. (Granted by GOD, not man. see declaration of independence. ) The Constitution give the Federal Government certain LIMITED powers, and the first 8 of 10 amendments spell out clearly what the government MAY NOT DO. All rights NOT ENUMERATED are retained BY THE PEOPLE, and the STATES, repspectively. Read the 9th and 10th amendment. If the Federal Government needs additional powers, legally the constitution must be amended to give the government those additional powers. Of course, since the people are not vigilant, it is moot. The feds are so fscking out of control with their power, and people dont seem to give a shift. We should have dealt with the abusive laws and power hungry bastards long ago. Now, statements like "such and such is not a right" because it is NOT enumerated is seldom challenged as the bullshit that it is. It shows that the thinking of the people is deteriorated to the point that they believe that rights flow from the government, and we get what they decide to give us, rather than the original notion that man is free to live his life how he sees fit, within the parameters of decency and civility, and the government is on a short leash, to serve us....

re: notice that...

[Silvercloud]

that just by possessing source code and attempting to sell it, Mr. Genovese is labeled a hacker, in the first line of the article no less. It's a shame that hackers are the continual blacksheep of the tech world...

Re:Who can really gain from this code though?

[Stevyn]

Extortionists.

You get the code, look for flaws, write a program that exploits the flaws, and say "Hey Microsoft, give us $50,000 or we'll release this new virus that will wipe out every computer running Windows 2000 that's connected to the Internet."

Now that's assuming such a security flaw could exist...and at this point wouldn't surprise a lot of people around here.

I doubt business rivals would care much because their only competition right now (wrt Windows 2000) seems to be from people in the open source community. You DO NOT want leaked code appearing in OSS.

Re:Who can really gain from this code though?

[RupW]

Anyone who wants to exploit "reverse engineering for interoperation" rules without doing the hard work.

Open Source vs Anonymous Source

[4of12]

You can see where this is going.

Recapping:

• Microsoft source gets into the wild through negligence on someone's part
• Microsoft starts offering generous Royalty-Free terms on various internet protocols (though many are peeved that the blanket protection seemingly covers protocols not actually owned by MS. In the confusion, people not paying attention will be confused.)
• Microsoft, like HP, Novell and Red Hat before them, and, after all the FUD cloud emanating from the corpse company called SCO, offers indemnification against customers getting blackmailed by Intellectual Property Threats (like what SCO attempted to do to Autozone and Daimler Chrysler).

If you thought it was difficult doing a thorough Theo code audit for security was a formidable task, even given the open source code, then imagine the difficulty of looking through all of the source and wondering if any of it infringes on anyone's claimed "Intellectual Property". There aren't any options to diff and grep to complete such a task, AFAICT. The other half of the comparison remains under lock and key, except to those with rights to the IP.

Linus' policy of requiring signed patch contributions to the Linux source looks more and more like a good and proper defensive measure. I'd feel better if other high profile FOSS projects had systems of signing patches and an examinable web of trust between the major contributors. Go ahead and accept patches, but let each contributor sign them.

The whole issue of IP indemnification reeks of a deliberate strategy to slow the growth of free and open source deployments by sowing doubt into the minds of decision makers considering use of FOSS for their business but must consider risk in their decision (and a limited amount of time and information on which to base a decision).

Transparency should make FOSS less IP infringing quickly compared to closed source, where IP infringements can be compiled away from easy recognition by the IP owners.