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. "

Comments

This is an exploiting trojan

[genericacct]

This is serious spyware that exploits a security vulnerability in Windows. It doesn't even require the user to click through an install and hide somewhere in the EULA, it flat-out installs itself without the recipient's knowledge. I can see how this would be just as illegal as phishing or creating spam zombies.

TFA doesn't explain this very well. Couldn't find an antivirus page about it, but here's another page mentioning the tool.

Grrr.. That "hacking" term-abuse again

[Geshem]

If hacking is a violation, then Linux must be illegal.

Yes, I know they mean that differently, but once laws outlaw "hackers", I wouldn't want to be counted as one..
Truth is in the eyes of the power-holder.. :-/

Re:Use of Hacker

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

I hate this constant bitching about the use of the word "hacker". Words are generally used to communicate. The word "cracker" is a word used by a small minority of geeks, and it's sole purpose is to allow the users of said word to bitch about the people who don't use it. It certainly doesn't serve the purpose of communication as most people don't even know the purported meaning the word in this context. Words whose sole purpose is to beat other people really aren't nice and the world is better off both without the word, and without those people who insist on using it.

In most cases...

[Vacant Mind]

authors should not be responsible for how the users use their programs. Is Ford responsible for people using their cars to kill people? Smith and Wesson for people using their guns to shoot people? Absolutely not.

However if the creator of the program created the program to specifically hack people and cause damage than he is guilty for whatever the users do, as well as the ones who use the program.

Re:Uh, backorifice is not "spyware"

[joshdick]

Parent hit the nail on the head. What matters in this case is whether the defendant's actions constitute inducement, i.e. encouragement, of illegal activities. The answer is undoubtedly yes.

Re:true, true and irrelevant

[Slur]

Well, consider at least why it's annoying. I know it annoys me to hear this phrase used improperly. And basically it's because I know the person using it is simply using it for the sake of its stylistic merits, probably without ever having seen its proper usage. No person would ever naturally reach for the phrase "begs the question" when "brings up" or "raises" or "implies" or "gives rise to" - or hell, "makes you wonder" - are all more natural turns of phrase.

In my brain it always (raises the question as to|makes me wonder) whether the person heard the phrase used properly and is now repeating it in the improper way, or if they're just using the phrase because they think it sounds smart, in which case they sound twice as silly. You get my inferestimication?

But oh well. I just saw an episode of The X-Files in which Sculley uses the improper form of the phrase, so I guess if she uses it this way then it must be cool.

He did far more than sell software

[msobkow]

From the article, he collected all the information that was being sent to his clients. So he didn't just sell the software, he was collecting information that could have been used for identity theft, credit fraud, blackmail, etc.

This wasn't a simple case of selling software with the potential for abuse -- the retailer himself was one of the abusers.

Why hasn't Gator, or whatever been arrested?

[asscroft]

Gator, CyDoor, et al actually get to make money doing this, why haven't they been arrested.

Re:true, true and irrelevant

[Arker]

Apparently it made plenty of sense to you, since you were able to parse it to mean "raises the question".

Because of context. It could have said 'that xoids the fragnit' instead, and we would have been able to figure out what the writer was trying to say.