Slashdot Mirror
Spyware Maker Indicted on Hacking Charges
An anonymous reader writes "The San Diego Union-Tribune is reporting that Carlos Enrique Perez Melara, the author of an investigative tool called 'Lover Spy,' has been indicted on 35 counts of federal hacking violations. This begs the question: if you develop and sell a software product, are you responsible for what your users choose to do with it?" From the article: "Perez, a native of El Salvador, probably is in the Los Angeles area, said Stewart Roberts, the second highest-ranking agent at the San Diego FBI office. Crime Stoppers has offered a $1,000 reward. Perez is charged with 35 crimes, each of which carries a potential five-year prison sentence if he is convicted. "
If you create a nuclear weapon, you should not sell it to North Korea. If you create a tank, selling it to Iran surely would not increase your merits in the western societies. If you sell guns to teenagers, you are a criminal and - as far as I am concerned - partly responsible if those teenagers start shooting their classmates.
Why of all things should you not be responsible for creating a software intended for potentially criminal purpose (here: spying on users) and giving it to people who will use it? Following this logic of non-responsibility, worm writers should not be persecuted, because the damage their creations have done was not their immediate fault.
Screw the FSM - Real geeks believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn
IANAL, but if a gun maker named their pistol "Felon's Favorite"(TM) or "Rob-Rite"(TM), then I'm sure they would be susceptible to either civil or criminal legal pleasantries.
Are there legitimate uses of this code? If so, then why didn't the author market it strictly for those uses and name it something a little less felonious than "Lover Spy?"
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
This begs the question: if you develop and sell a software product, are you responsible for what your users choose to do with it?
The question boils down to the intent of the author. If the program, when considered as a whole, cannot be reasonably construed to have alternative non-damaging or benign uses then it serves to demonstrate the malicious intent of the author and therefore it becomes possible to assign some responsibility for the actions of users to the original author(s). Software engineers, like other engineers, must have some code of ethics that governs the standard and intent of the programs that we produce. If you write a virus, worm, spam ware, or other "evil" type of application then you are responsible for the damage you cause to other people. You cannot demonstrate vulnerabilities or exploit code to prove a point while damaging other people's property in the process. In this case it seems that the author in question, Carlos Enrique Perez Melara, is indeed responsible for malicious intent in the collateral damage that his software caused.
Why not? Do we not treat child-porn JPGs, which are nothing but a series of numbers stored in a file, the same way we treat polariods of child-porn?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
I'm not in favour for what he's done, but getting 175 years in prison for writing a program?
You can get less for killing a man. No wonder the prisons are already full.
Perhaps it's time to realize that it's not always the solution to lock people up for what they have done.
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
Logic is not an obscure technical field of some kind, it's an absolutely necessary core function for a free human being. If you don't understand it, you need to improve yourself, not make excuses.
Furthermore, your proposed 'simple English' meaning for the phrase doesn't stand up to the most cursory examination. 'Begs' is never used in English to mean 'demands' although it can be used as an antonym for demands, among other senses. So your 'simple English' parsing makes no sense in English at all.
The fact is, your 'simple English' parsing is simply an incorrect one, and transparently so to any native English speaker of moderate skill and a token amount of thoughtfulness. It doesn't make sense, it never made sense. Using the phrase in that way is nothing more than a way to advertise to everyone in earshot 'look at me, I like to use big words I don't understand.'
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.