Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Tricks Hacker Into Jail
CompotatoJ writes "Wired News reported that William 'IllWill' Genovese was sentenced to prison after being tricked by a Microsoft Investigator offering to pay $20 for a copy of the secret source code. From the article: 'The investigator then returned and arranged a second $20 transaction for an FBI agent, which led to Genovese's indictment under the U.S. Economic Espionage Act, which makes it a felony to sell a company's stolen trade secrets ... [Microsoft] has also expressed fears that making its source code public could allow hackers to find security holes in Microsoft products -- though, so far, intruders are doing fine without the source.'"
The summary is wrong. It says the investigator paid $200. From TFA:
"According to court records, an investigator hired by Microsoft took Genovese up on his offer and dropped two Hamiltons on the secret source code". Hamilton is on the $10 bill, not the $100 (That would be Franklin). Two Hamiltons is $20, hence the next sentence saying "...another $20 transaction..."
Entrapped means the person was talked into doing something they otherwise wouldnt have done, tricked has similiar connotations. In this case I would say Microsoft caught him fair and square, and the transaction provided all the evidence required to jail him. Good riddance I say.
You can read about this arrest from a first person perspective at William Genovese's website here. An interesting read, and he lists some of the e-mail and snail mail addresses used in the sting against him.
It even says in TFA:
"Genovese would have had a viable defense had he gone to trial, because the documents were widely available on peer-to-peer networks at the time of the sale, said Mark Rasch, a former Justice Department cybercrime prosecutor.
'This guy didn't participate in the misappropriation, and probably didn't conspire with anybody to misappropriate it,' said Rasch, a vice president at security company Solutionary."
www.linuxpenguin.net
For it to be entrapment, someone would have had to approach him with an offer to buy the stolen source code. He posted an offer to sell the source code on a website, so he initiated the exchange.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Parent is absolutely right. The "summary" couldn't be any more wrong then it is.
First, this guy was not a 'hacker'. He downloaded the source from a P2P program. My mother could do that.
Second, if anyone had bothered to read the actual article, they would see there was absolutely no entrapment here. He downloaded the software and offered it up for sale on his website. The only 'entrapment' was that an agent bought what he was already offering. This guy was an idiot. He wasn't pushed by the authorities into doing anything illegal. Hell, he was the only one to be indited even though everyone and their dog has thsi source code because he was the only one stupid enough to try and sell what was freely avaliable. Not only that, but he already had a rap sheet.
This guy was just a moron, pure and simple.
For everyone who's ready to jump on this and scream "Entrapment!" let's do two things first:
1. Read TFA. From TFA: "Like many others, Genovese downloaded a copy. Unlike others, he posted a note to his website offering it for sale."
2. Learn TFD of Entrapment. From Wikipedia: Entrapment is when someone is "induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit [a crime]. For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime."
Come on everybody, think. You hear Microsoft and US Government and you assume they set the guy up, cuz they are *always* wrong.... He knowingly broke the law, he did that a lot. No news here.
Entrapment:
This guy offered the code for sale. He was not unwillingly "induced", or "coerced" to sell it. This is NOT entrapment.
That said, he is also not a simple downloader. Before your heart starts bleeding for him too badly, look at his criminal history, discussed in the article. Mostly small-time stuff, but, FTFA:
So let's see. He downloaded a copy of proprietary source code. He then tried to make money by selling it on his "hacking-related" web site which he operates. He also is on probation for breaking into some private computers & installing key logging software. In the very BEST light possible, he's a small-time cracker & pirate, with a history of stupid criminal behavior.
Just because Microsoft chooses not to release its source code does NOT give someone else the right to take it, and then attempt to profit by reselling that source code. Like it or not, whether or not they open-source their operating system is their CHOICE (isn't that one of the fundamental principals of the F/OSS movement?), not yours. You may not like their choice, but that doesn't give anyone the right to "correct" Microsoft's choice because it's not the same choice RMS would make.
A pirate? You mean he sailed the seven seas, sunk other ships, stole their goods, raped their women and murdered the crew?
I agree that the headline is typical Slashdot flamebait and that it's important to point out the difference between hackers and crackers, but it's also important to point out the difference between copyright infringment, stealing and piracy - those are three very distinct things (and only two of them are criminal offenses, too, FWIW).
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Your AC comment would indeed be "insightful," were it not completely wrong. In the end, at least one company was forced to pay Pamela and Tommy Lee substantial damages for making the video available on the internet. The only battle that the porn people won was its claim that the couple signed away their rights in their initial settlement agreement with the porn people who first aired it. After the trial judge's throwing the case for internet distribution out of court was overturned on appeal, the porn people threw in the towel and judgment was rendered against them for the illegal distribution of the video.