Slashdot Mirror
Consultant Convicted For Non-Invasive Site Access
Phillip P Barnett writes "Security consultant Daniel Cuthbert worried that he'd been stung by a phishing scam when he donated to a Tsunami relief effort in London, UK. He was convicted for hacking and lost his job after running a couple of checks on the website in question." From the article: "During the trial, Cuthbert's defence argued that any unauthorised access was entirely innocent. In evidence it was shown that he had attempted to access the tsunami donations site on two occasions and the site's security systems had denied him access. The defence also pointed out that Cuthbert had not attempted to defraud the site." ZDNet also has a commentary piece on what this decision may mean for the future of cybercrime.
I can't help but suspect there must be more to this story than is being put forth. Part of me wants to believe his defense, "he never tried to defraud", but my distaste for legal mumbo jumbo makes me wonder more about the specifics:
On its face, this looks like serious stuff with serious consequences for seemingly innocent activity and should give pause to any internet users, but I suspect there's more to it than meets the public eye.
While I sympathize with him, taking the law into your own hands on a whim, regardless of the crime or environment, should not be tolerated. If he was B&Eing into a biker hangout to see if they had his stolen TV, he'd be prosecuted in the exact same manor.
body massage!
Generally making a statement to the police isn't done under oath.
And really, if the crime was perjury, why wasn't he convicted for perjury and not something else?
Moral of the story: don't lie to the cops about security testing.
We live in a world where posession of electronics and printouts on the subway gets you hauled away by a full riot squad under suspicion of terrorism.
The average cop doesn't have the faintest clue about legitimate security testing as opposed to malicious hacking. Same tools, same methods, same general sort of people - Only the motivation differs, which the "target" can only discern after-the fact (and since the article mentions he failed to gain access, he can't even establish that much in his own defense). Even another IT security pro would most likely have to seriously consider the exact choice of attacks to discern intent (for example, did he obviously not use easier but more damaging tools for certain parts of the task?).
Yes, geeks should ALWAYS lie to the police, whether in the right or not. Because the police have one job - Check off that last little box on their list. If they can do that by throwing away a "cybercriminal" by getting a jury full of people who can't even open email attachments to convict, they WILL. The error here involves changing his story.
The fact that he was arrested for performing a nonviolent act is the first abuse by authorities.
After finding no cause to charge him, they instead convicted him of lying. So he was wrongfully accused, but during interrogation he lied.
Crazy world we live in. Why not arrest every tenth person for murder. See if they slip up some fact, then book them.
In my mind, if the original arrest is unfounded, take no action.
This reads to me something like "If anybody tells you can't do something with a computer, and you do it anyway, it's a crime.".
So, in the UK, to attach criminal liability to your violation of any of my own wishes, I just have to somehow involve a computer.
What, by the way, is a computer in the UK? Do embedded devices count? Don't leave through that automatic door; Mickey here hasn't sold his quota of cars this week, and we want a fair chance to convince you to buy. Whoops--you triggered the photoeye, causing the automatic door to open. I guess you can't get more egalitarian than this--every individual has the right to pass criminal laws.
OK, this seems a really silly example. It is. After all, we trust the authorities to selectively enforce overly broad laws--only prosecuting the real bad guys.
Hell, it works on this side of the pond; why not over there?
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
We live in a world where posession of electronics and printouts on the subway gets you hauled away by a full riot squad under suspicion of terrorism.
Dude, this is Britain we're talking about. Possession of a winter jacket and a Brazilian sun-tan gets you far, far worse than a hauling away.
This is where the serious fun begins.
It sounds more like a red cross person asks you for money, but doesn't say thank you, so you try to pickpocket them to check their ID is valid, and then get caught with your hand in their pocket.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Yes, geeks should ALWAYS lie to the police, whether in the right or not. Because the police have one job - Check off that last little box on their list. If they can do that by throwing away a "cybercriminal" by getting a jury full of people who can't even open email attachments to convict, they WILL.
Because, naturally, everybody else is a corrupt, money-grubbing idiot who have no interest in serving society, helping people out or any other noble enterprises, whereas all geeks are paragons of altruism who live in their parent's basement and work tech support so that they can write free software for the greater good.
All the cops that I've met were just trying to do their job. They don't get paid by the conviction. They would much rather be stopping violent criminals and making people safer, but they have to deal with all crime because non-violent crime can damage society just as much as violent crime. I have certainly heard about corruption, bigotry, etc., but haven't seen it myself.
On the other hand, I've known some technical people who have no interest in playing by the rules (on any level). Most people seem to think that cheating the law is some sort of game (although they don't want to play anymore when they lose). I've known geeks whose morals were just as low as any corrupt cop, and heard about those who did just as much damage.
This case is a nice example. If the defendant was forthright and honest, the judge would likely have taken his word and let him go. Because the guy tried to cheat the system, the judge has no reason to believe anything else he says, including the part about how he didn't mean to defraud the site he was visiting, that it was an honest evaluation. As you said, it's hard to tell the difference, so the character of the defendant plays a big role in determining his goals.
Judge Purdy said that Cuthbert was "deliberately trying to throw the police off the trail", by saying one thing and then another.
Well no shit! The people who were prosecuting him clearly couldn't handle the truth. These are not reasonable people. One who arrests another for a directory traversal (with no evidence of cracking) is not a reasonable person.
The very fact the investigators couldn't discern between a cracking attempt and a directory traversal is evidence that the they were not capable of handling this type of work. Being an intelligent person, he probably figured the best course of action (to end this as quickly as possible) was to give the information to them in a way they could understand.
For example, if I were arrested for the same "offense," I would probably state something like this:
"I wasn't hacking; I was just using standard web access techniques to validate the site's identity."
Which, depending on your level of ignorance, may be construed as "lying." The investigator may live under the impression that the only type of web access which is "standard" is logging on the site using the main form. The investigators probably felt he was being an arrogant prick and wanted to make an example of him. This is not the purpose of law.
This guy donates 30 pounds to a charity, for which he receives no verification. He practices due diligence (against a phishing attack) by validating the authenticity of the site. And they have the nerve not only to arrest him, but to prosecute him! And convict him!
I am repulsed, and I weep for the security community.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
have a look at http://www.dec.org.uk. They are currently supporting as campaign to help the worthy cause of the situation in the Niger. Click on the donate button and you will be taken to a shocking rendition of a 1997-esque payment page that looks awful. So I imagine our man Cuthbert looked again at the dec.org.uk site and it looks bonafide enough and also the whois entry stacks up.
I remember at the time that the BBC News carried a story at, or about the time of the Hogmany (31st Dec 2004) regarding fake websites. I could only find this story on BBC website 6 days after the alledged incident.
so our man cuthbert panics. As you can see the basic link and page to securetrading.net (not even a .co.uk). Remember that 31-DEC-2004 is a friday before a long holiday weekend. So there will no-one to phone. He looks at the certificate for the server-side SSL - "Secure trading Ltd" a UK company. But the whois entry is privately registered and does not have any standard company details on it - it is also registered abroad (which isn't a big worry, but remember this is a UK gov't sponsored website)
My next port of call is Companies House - where all UK Ltd companies have to be, by law, registered. So using their webcheck facility - it is company number 04591066 with an address in south east london. Not a government organisation, but seems wholly owned by another unknown company UC Media? securetrading.co.uk? no, they're someone else. back to companies house - searching for UC Media, can't find them, but there is an entry for UC Group Ltd at the same address. bingo. hang on. there are two insolvency notices on this company...
I'm sorry but I would have also panicked.
It seems to me that its like a teen rattling a gate at the ball park to see if it is locked. While you might do so out of curiosity, or in an attempt to gain unauthorized access, it is still just checking to see if it is locked. If you have a valid ticket in your pocket, accessing through that gate would still be wrong, but checking that it is locked is not.
It does not matter if you have safe cracking tools in the garage at home, if you are simply standing outside the jewelry shop, and check to see if the door is locked or anyone is inside, this doesn't mean that you are attempting to steal diamonds. Sure, he may have had tools on his machine, but that is no different than saying a cop has a gun, and looked like he was trying to break into the store when the door was locked. Things are not always as they appear, and convicting on the basis of intention, especially when it is not overly easy to see the intention, is just wrong.
We have no need of, or room for, thought police in civilized society.
Of course, I may have missed a salient point here, but it just seems wrong to convict without evidence of harm.
In the case of where this seems to happen, like dangerous driving (intoxicated or not) it has been shown that this behavior does lead to accidents, and removing the driver from public roads is a safety measure that does not harm anyone. This is the reason for various lane markings, speed limits, etc.
In this case, there was no speed limits or lane markings, only a locked gate type of guidance. Convicting this man of attempting to steal when there is no blatant evidence is just wrong, and sets a bad precedent in my opinion. Banks don't keep their cash funds out on the sidewalk for a reason. If they did, and it went missing, what exactly would the courts say?
Additionally, it doesn't seem to ring true that a 'security expert' would leave such a trail as to be caught if he was truly trying to break into the system?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I would love to hear how, exactly, the British cops explain this.
Question: "So, the suspect was dangerous?"
Cop: "No, guv, we had him pinned down, he wasn't going anywhere."
Q: "So... Did he have a weapon?"
Cop: "No, just a rail ticket."
Q: "And you had him pinned down?"
Cop: "Yep!"
Q: "At which point you shot him once in the shoulder and seven times in the head?"
Cop: "We wasn't taking any chances, Gov!"
Q: "What, exactly, did you think he might do? Use harsh language???"
Cop: "..."
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!