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.'"

Comments

Summary wrong, $20 not $200

[Agelmar]

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..."

Re:Semantics...

[Richard_at_work]

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.

Story from a first-person perspective

[nstrom]

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.

Not entrapment

[msobkow]

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.

Re:Semantics...

[Shihar]

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.

Re:Microsoft Entraps Downloader into Jail

[Americano]

Wow. You need to actually RTFA, and understand that words have specific meanings.

Entrapment:

In jurisprudence, entrapment is a procedural defense by which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they were induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit said acts. For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime. However, when a person is predisposed to commit a crime, offering opportunities to commit the crime is not entrapment, such as in the widely held misconception that policemen must answer questions truthfully if they are asked the same question three times, or that they must say "yes" if asked if they are a police officer.

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:

Government court filings show the Connecticut man has an extensive record of mostly petty crimes, beginning with a 1996 conviction for criminal trespass for spray painting a bridge, followed by a rash of thefts from motor vehicles and a burglary conviction. In 1999 he was convicted of "breaching the peace" by assaulting the mother of his child, according to court records. At the time of the source-code sale, Genovese was on probation for computer trespass and eavesdropping after breaking into some private computers and installing keystroke-logging software.

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.

Re:Notice corporate rights vs personal rights

[PatHMV]

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.