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.'"
You paid $200 for the Windows source? Dude, you got ripped off!
Oh no... it's the future.
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..."
Um, no...this isn't even remotely entrapment.
I haven't exactly gone looking for it or anything, but isn't the Windows source code available on P2P?
If so, that is pretty damn stupid to be selling something that is readily available like that. I am betting these undercover folks would be his only customers.
Freedom would be not to choose between black and white but to abjure such prescribed choices. -Theodor Adorno
...will serve three years of supervised release following his prison term, during which he'll be subject to electronic monitoring through special software installed on his computer
Looks like they have finally found a legal use for the Sony Rootkit.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Probably just someone stupid enough to think he can make a quick buck by downloading something from a p2p network.
The company has long maintained that the source code to Windows and other products are its crown jewels, and that making the code public could cause serious harm by stripping it of trade-secret status, and allowing competitors to duplicate the functionality of Microsoft software.
Come on - anybody can code up a BSOD if they really want to.
Should Mark from sysinternals be worried?
liqbase
But surely this is good as it'll result in a better, more secure product in the end?
I really do not see what is so secret about Windows source code, what trade secrets can you possible hide in it apart from sekret protocol dox?
paid $200 and the go to jail..
Music, Games, Media Art and Programming
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.
No, I don't think anyone says "entrapped" because this case has as much to do with entrapment as it has to do with tea in China. Entrapment requires an agent of the government to coerce someone into comitting a crime they would not otherwise commit. In this case, the guilty party offered the source for sale on his website. This is like someone putting up a sign saying "Crack For Sale" in their yard. He was offering regardless of police interference. That's as far from coercion as you can get.
The laws of probability forbid it!
I heard recently about three hackers which were charged but microsoft later dropped all charges and decided not sue. I believe their names were Whitman Price and Haddad.
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
Why exactly do you think this is even remotely like entrapment? Here's a thought, since you obviously don't know what entrapment is, why don't you go and look up what it means before you engage your fingers here again.
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.
Unfortunatle it only counts as entrapment if the offer is made by a member of a law enforcment agency. Funny thing though technically if it's illegal to sell the stuff I would assume it's illegal to buy it so the microsoft investigator committed a crime too. If I were to buy illegal narcotics from someone and then tell the cops about it I would most likely be done for possession. These are the things I think about when I should be working. Ho hum.
Pamela Anderson's private home sex video stolen and sold is legal to sell because it's public interest a judge ruled.
Microsoft source code stolen and sold is industrial espionage with 3 year sentence.
I do not see how he is a hacker? It was some guy that has Kazza running and came across something that seemed cool... So he downloaded it! How is that a hacker? I am pretty sure my grandmother could get a P2P program running and possibly come across the source code and download it. What a crock.
"Microsoft Tricks Hacker Into Jail"
/.ers who write code self-described hackers? This guy was trading in pirated software. So, he is a "Pirate," not a "Hacker." I'd complain about the editing, but this is /..
That's not a very good headline. I mean, aren't many
Ben
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
FTFA 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. "Once it's posted online, it's just not secret anymore. At some point it becomes public information."
Microsoft must be getting really serious 'bout this issue; not any security issue, mind you, but a PR one, thats for sure.
They went after some guy who tried to sell what he found, and then was dum enuf to sell for $40 online, but who had no connection whatsoever to leaking anything, and, by his own description, is less than the sharpest tack in the bulletin board:
"Basically, everything I do, I do ass-backwards," Genovese said in an instant-messaging interview ahead of Friday's sentencing. "I like drawing, so I spray paint. I like music, so I took some radios of kids I hated in high school. I like computers, so I hack."
Selling other people's stuff that you find laying around may not be legal or especially smart, but making a big deal out of the 800 billion lb. gorilla "catching" a petty criminal in the act ain't much news, either, unless MS wants to spend their PR highlighting their own incompetence....Oh, now I get it.
"Lost time is not found again."
Who even gets out of bed for $20 these days? I'd want at least $50
I like muppets.
Google doesn't trick people into jail.
really 867993
Karma schkarma
But that wouldn't have made for a good story on Slashdot...
[Microsoft] has also expressed fears that making its source code public could allow hackers to find security holes in Microsoft products
I guess Microsoft thinks having many eyes on the source won't work as well as it does for the open source projects...
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.
I just read the blog and it almost made me cry.
So apparently this is wrong, or at least has been amended a bit by the act referenced in the summary. Would this guy have been in the clear if he'd just been offering a trade secret for download? (With source code, it's complicated by the fact that the code is subject to copyright, too, though. What if we were dealing with, say, the formual for Coca Cola, to take the canonical example?)
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
When I first read these types of articles, I usually think, that's outrageous, he didn't do anything, the code was already leaked, now the poor sap has a conviction for something trivial.
Then I realize, hey, I'd NEVER post stolen code or offer stolen code for sale on my website. Its friggin stupid. Its obviously stolen and obviously illegal and completely traceable to me. I'd expect to have the FBI knocking on my door if I did something so stupid. Like many criminals, this guy didn't cause any real harm but completely lacks judgement. Now he'll suffer a bit for it.
Sharing the source code would make it easier to find bugs. I don't think anyone seriously disputes this.
Thats often the entire point. The hardest part of fixing a bug is often *finding* it. Unless you would prefer to leave it alone and hope for the best, you want your bugs, especially critical security flaws, to be found as quickly as possible so they can be fixed.
FTA I like music, so I took some radios of kids I hated in high school. I like computers, so I hack.
The hacker's code...
"Lost time is not found again."
... Remainings of MS lawer that tricked Don Vito Genovese's grandson into jail found in shoebox.
839*929
Now that's news.
I see now. Since the government isn't supposed to engage in entrapment, private companies will. And since private companies are now becoming increasingly indistinguishable from governments... I guess we're all fucked.
Are you so anxious to hate private businesses, and to think it's cool if people try to make $20 off of their stolen source code, that you're willing to pretend this jerk didn't advertise for the sale of the source code on his own web site? He wasn't "entrapped," he was advertising stolen stuff. Plus, he's obviously a complete moron.
As for private companies looking after their own welfare... why do you supposed that retailers are forced to have security guards? Retails stores, especially the ones selling expensive, eBay-friendly stuff, are hit constantly by shoplifters and scam artists. But most local taxpayers would scream bloody murder if they had to pay for enough police officers to have one on hand in every department store in every mall, 7 days a week. So, private security is a big and (unfortunately) completely necessary line of work.
You also seem to be forgetting about corporate/international espionage. Companies working on competitive products - especially those performing very expensive research - have to be continually vigilant against both inside and outside theft of their trade secrets, materials, financial plans, marketing campaigns, etc. If they don't use private security to help them deal with that, their only choice is to just put up with the consequences of seeing, say, a factory in China starting up production on something that the ripped-off research company just spent millions of dollars figuring out how to make, or they could... ask the government to provide trade security for every company? What would you say then, that the taxpayers are being forced to serve the coporations, blah blah blah? Exactly. So, when a company with a lot at stake has their own security people urgently tracking down people that are ripping them off (even some complete idiot advertising astoundingly sensitive stolen O/S source code for sale on his web site, and willing to take $20 for it), you can hardly bitch. Unless your position is that it's cool to steal sensitive information and sell it, in which case, let's start with yours: I can probably make $20 with your SSN and some other personal details. And that's too small to bother the police with, so I'm home free since you clearly don't think it's ethical for you to personally track down someone who rips you off.
Oh, and try one of those fancy new high-tech online dictionaries. You can immediately, and without fear of prosecution, learn what entrapment actually means.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
No problem here, surely. Bloke caught for doing something wrong. Large organisation protects its IP.
Asserting that code in the public domain might cause security problems is just spin consistent with protecting IP. It's PR and would anyone here expect anything different. Might not be convincing but MS wants its code to itself, sees it as IP and wants to keep control over it. How is this different to any other organisation? Deride MS for being closed but if it acts consistently, where's the problem?
Wasn't there a war recently where the justification didn't really appear to reflect reality? Unless this guy is some kind of freedom fighter then where's the issue?
He downloaded the source from a P2P program. My mother could do that.
:)
Really? Would she be interested in selling it? Please, speak a little louder...
"Hell, he was the only one to be indited even though everyone and their dog has thsi source code"
After reading this I became curious and checked my dog's bedding, and sure enough I found a copy of the Microsoft source code.
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.
you couldn't pay me to take or look or do anything with microsoft's source code. microsoft seems to think that it is valuable or something.
well here is message to bill - if your source code went to cyberspace heaven today the world would still function fine without it.
so please take and keep your source code to yourself and go play with it by yourself.
Google doesn't trick people into jail.
After drinking Steve Jobs' koolaid, people would
voluntarity go & get themselves arrested, if Jobs
asked them to. And would even pay daily board &
food charges at the jail.
The first thing that bothers me is that a private company takes reasearch into their own hands. If they see such a thing, then you should go directly to the police (or FBI or whatever).
Second is they they use an anti-spy law. As if trying to say: Hey, we cought somebody. What is the law that fits this and will put him away for the longest period of time?
Yes, he was an idiot who did something wrong, but three years?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Ok, first of all I think it's weird that MS can claim the source code is a trade secret in the first place. It's my understand that in order for something to be classified as a trade secret it would have to be kept secret, and people who take it and distribute it would have to be pursued and dealt with. otherwise the company loses its right to claim it as a trade secret. Witness how little (if anything) they've done about the code being swapped around for years now. Then again, IANAL, ISUCK, etc.
Regardless, the guy was convicted of selling stolen trade secrets. He was a dumbass for selling it in the first place, but I digress.. It turns out that the penalty for POSSESSION of a stolen trade secret is up to 10 years in jail and a $250k fine. It's worth considering for those of you who might have copies stashed away in backups somewhere just for the hell of it.
Not that I'd ever stoop so low as to possess stolen trade secrets, of course..
(runs off to scour his hard drive)
I wonder how hard it would be for MS to decide to scan your system for files with names matching those discovered on p2p networks. They could stick it in that monthly "Malicious Software Removal" tool in Windows Update, even. Ouch. I doubt it would work as evidence in a court but it would give them reason to suspect you or to attempt to gather evidence that WOULD stand up if they really wanted to bother charging everyone.
"Bother," said Pooh, as lightning knocked out hi%#&(F*@NO CARRIER
You're missing the obvious: If source code is stolen, then primarily only the black hats will get it. Legitimate users, which 99% of people who look at FOSS code are, basically don't exist in the black market. The code is closed. It's not like Mr. Russinovich is going to submit a bug fix because he read stolen code.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
I've known illwill for a very long time. We've both been in the same 'scene' for quite a while. The Windows backdoor programming scene. Most of the people in our little niche are sociopaths pure and simple. We know it's wrong but we don't really care. Saying illwill was tricked is pretty stupid. He knew it was wrong, he didn't care and he assumed no one else would. It's the same for many others, we just simply don't care. Now I'm sure illwill cares about going to jail for 2 years but that's fear of punishment, not fear of wrong doing. I'm sure even some of the more sane serial killers value their freedom.
This being said, Microsoft has won nothing. He was responsible for distributing the source code to exactly 1 person, a Microsoft snitch. If it wasn't for the snitch taking him up on his offer there would have been nobody that cared. Taking away 2 years of a persons life over such trivial shit is appalling and only serves to make us more numb and hateful to the laws of our society.
That being said, good luck illwill, we're going to miss your exploits and granny pr0n that you've posted in #trinity over the years!
Private citizens or entities cannot commit entrapment unless they are acting on behalf of the government. Microsoft could have blatantly pushed Genovese into doing something he otherwise wouldn't have done, and he would still be guilty (although in such a case, Microsoft might be guilty as well).
English is easier said than done.
Not only do you have no clue what entrapment is, you can't even read the linked story:
"Like many others, Genovese downloaded a copy. Unlike others, he posted a note to his website offering it for sale.
According to court records, an investigator hired by Microsoft took Genovese up on his offer and dropped two Hamiltons on the secret source code. 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"
Follow me here, from the article: he downloaded it, offered it up for sale on his website and *after* that Microsoft came back and purchased the code which he posted he had and was for sale. After they did that, they dropped a note to the feds that a guy was selling the shit and to gather even more evidence they can do it to. Note the timeline as to what happened here? You can follow the timeline of events can't you (let me repeat it because it might take a couple of times to get through your thick head)
1) he offered to sell it on his website before anybody talked to him
2) Microsoft guy finds that he has made a offer of selling it on his website
3) Microsoft guy gives him $20 for his made offer
4) Microsoft tells feds
5) Feds do it to
6) Feds nab him
7) You like a complete moron think that's entrapment and continue arguing that it is
You aren't that stupid are you?
Sure, but your friends at the former KGB, and Communist China have an inside perspective. But hey, if you can sell crap like that to places that safeguard your countries most important secrets, why not share it with your enemies? You know they in turn are sharing it with their friends in North Korea, Pakistan and elsewhere. Terrorists indeed. No need to worry about that stuff proliferating because it's already gone. Given such an irresponsible sales record, it's hard to imagine them calling the source code a trade secret.
What could be more important than making a buck? Certainly not the freedom of some poor dope who thought he had something of value in his hands. Why, if he could do it anyone could and M$ would dissapear and the terrorists would win, right?
I can't believe they would try to trot out the terrorist bogey man.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Actually no... that would put you in jail for some type of fraud.
/. for being The Man Who Took On Microsoft. Which would give you serious geek cred... as long as you wouldn't mind that everybody else would think you were just a dumb asshole who tried to purchase the Brooklyn Bridge.
If Microsoft offered to sell YOU something that they had no right to profit from selling (i.e., The Brooklyn Bridge -- it's not their property, and they have no legal right to sell it, or profit from the sale of it), and you paid for it, then you would have a case against them, and could probably take them to court.
And you would then be roundly praised on
I'm commenting on his side of the story.
On his website he CLAIMS that he never offered it for sale -- only bragged that he had it. He claims the microsoft shill sent him an anonymous email asking to buy the software and he thought it might be a good idea to make a little extra cash. He claims that he never once thought of selling it, nor offered it for sale, before the shill had contacted him.
My point is that even if his side is entirely correct and that he hadn't initially done anything wrong except lie about having stolen ip, he was entrapped. Legally. And he deserved it.
To be honest, the gov't could be entirely correct and he did offer it for sale before they even contacted him. I'm taking the 'hackers' point of view for this exercise. Its the closest we have to the truth and still implicates him fully. The Gov'ts side is more clear cut...but taking the lesser of the two, we still come to the same conclusion that he broke the law.
If the gov't is right, then there was never entrapment.
If he is right, there was entrapment -- but it was from a NGO and thus legal.
Do you see my point?
Again, as a coward as I work for a governemental agency...they don't like shades of grey here -- even when I am essentially backing them up.
Again, even under his explanation that still *doesn't* fall under entrapment
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm
"However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity."
Wow, they caught a guy advertizing the code for sale. Genious!
"[Microsoft] has also expressed fears that making its source code public could allow hackers to find security holes in Microsoft products"
...
We wouldn't want THAT to happen
Since the government isn't supposed to engage in entrapment, private companies will.
You give way too little credit to the government. They could just have avoided coming up with the idea of entrapment in the first place. All of these defenses and legal terms were either coined by the government (through civil law), or used by a clever lawyer and accepted by the judge (through common law). If they wanted to, they could've built a Star Chamber. They haven't*. Here's a surprise: the justice system is actually meant to carry out justice.
Why should private companies be distinguishable from governments? In a capitalist society, private companies are the best group of the people - and where have you heard those last three words before?
*Yes, I know there are some Star Chambers in the US, but they're only used for a few cases like terrorism where you can't get a fair trial in the US anyway. Not that I'm defending them, just that this particular case will be tried in a fair courtroom.
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.
The English language is a wonderful thing. Part of it being wonderful is having a variety of words to accurately describe a variety of situations, another part is the 'fuzzy' comprehension of words writers or readers may not be familiar with.
Your parent presented the difference of enticement and entrapment. The article details enticement and a 'sting' rather than entrapment.
You state (in the parent) Entrapment is not illegal -- its just not allowed by gov't agents. This is true. It is even legal for government agents to entrap (it is against their rules of conduct, rather than laws of legality), but they may not bring a case to prosecution on the basis of entrapment, and a case may easily be thrown out if it becomes clear they have used entrapment.
Entrapment can be non-governmental -- but there is not a law on file for it BECAUSE IT IS NOT BREAKING THE LAW. Of fucking course they will specifically only talk about police and gov't officials in a law SPECIFICALLY BARRING POLICE AND GOV'T OFFICALS FROM ENGAGING IN THIS ACTIVITY.
Now this is where you logic of "I was talking in laymans terms and nothing more. Any non-dumbfuck would have understood this is EXACTLY what I was saying" breaks down. You firstly talked about the legal definition, even citing your perceptions of the law relating to government bodies, then contradicted yourself by saying (after the event) this is not what you meant.
That is why the English language (and practically almost every other human language on the planet) is a wonderful thing. There are words which mean certain things. That is also where human comprehension is a wonderful thing; we cannot expect everyone to speak like a PhD thesis so we piece together potentially inconsistent uses of words with the context they are used in (as is grammar and spelling to other degrees). You, sir, failed to use the word correctly, but more importantly "I was talking in laymans terms and nothing more" failed to help a lay(or any other)man understand what you actually meant, by being internally inconsistent.
The comment: :)
"...[Microsoft] has also expressed fears that making its source code public could allow hackers to find security holes in Microsoft products..."
reminded me of something I've often thought while glacing over the "who has more security holes/patches" diatribe that flops around periodically. Back when the whole Linux thing was still relatively new, I remember seeing many conversations about how having all that source code for the main system publically available means it will be eaiser for people to find and exploit that software. Microsoft tends to bolster this view, stating that one purpose of its closed source code is increased security. But you don't seem to ever seem to see this concept followed through on. Linux and BSD based systems are all over the place (i.e. the internet) these days, and the majority of web servers out there are running Apache. The code for all this software has been publically available for a very long time now, but there don't seem to be (from my perspective, at least) the increased security issues that there "should" be based on the "closed proprietary" security argument.
Nothing earth shattering, just a small observation. Take it for what you will.
RFC2119
what the hell? since when did we start handing out the title of Hacker to any douchebag who can figure out how to run a p2p app?
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
You do realize that entrapment in layman terms means that you entice them to do something that they normally WOULD NOT DO, don't you? Unless we are allowing you to make up a completely new definition that's what it is. We was most certainly willing to do this, it would be a very difficult statment to say that this would be something that he would not normally do. Entrapment in layman terms is that you entice them with something so much that you basically force them to cross a moral boundry they normally would not do. He was already past that moral boundry so again even under layman (not even talking legal) terms it's still not entrapment.
No kidding, I found a copy inside the CD Cover of Snoop Doggy Dogg's latest album.
"After reading this I became curious and checked my dog's bedding, and sure enough I found a copy of the Microsoft source code."
So you're saying that your dog's not house-broken?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The one that wishes to sell Microsoft "Secret Code"; Or the one who wishes to buy it. Even Microsoft says that Linux can do the same thing faster as was submitted here on /..
But look at it from Bill Gates' point of view; That secret code could put him out of business, and how could he support his family on what he's made so far?
Entrapment would be if the feds offered to sell HIM the illegal goods. If he offeres it to the officer then he's breaking the law of his own free will no coersion involved. I knew my bad boy days would come in handy!!! :-)
I was a friend of IllWill. Pretty sad story I think. Why don't companies just make better products? No store alarm to internet comparisons PLEASE. Well if he reads this I'd like to say good luck. their site was illmob.org which seems to be down right now.
i used to work for a call center most of you have called. We got calls from people wanting support on burned copies of XP and Office People paid retail on. And if I thought that some people were brazen for doing that... the computer store not a 10 minute drive from Campus was selling PC's with MSDN on it. People say MSFT is hard on idiots.. but everyone in the world has heard thier BSA ad's, the legit campain, and various others. You ussally have to do be doing it on a large scale and ignor thier shot over the bow to comply in order for you to get charged. I really wouldn't be surprised if MSFT had sent this idiot an email using a free email service saying how stupid this was. I'm sure they had no interest in jailing this idiot, only an interest in stoping him after getting warned. If they let some idiot do it for 20 whats to say in court that some one could do it for 2k, and use the legal defense that msft never stoped the first, so therfore it is acceptance from MSFT that if freely availible and wide spread. Then MSFT doesn't care. That kind of defence would get press and actually hurt stock prices. --rich
Really? If I offer someone a million pounds to steal a library book, then secretly film them doing so, and then get them arrested, is that legal? What about ethical?
[Microsoft] has also expressed fears that making its source code public could allow hackers to find security holes in Microsoft products
/. editors posted Kevin Mitnick's comment about 'hacking' open source code just because of this? Hmmmmm.... *thinks*
Is it just me, or did the
In your neck of the woods I think it would be called a "Honey Trap" and that scenario would only be entrapment if you were a government official, otherwise you would both be partners in crime. Also I would suggest if you were in this situation you just get a library card. Check out Thin Blue Line - "Honey Trap" (I didn't know how to properly cite it... when in doubt, make everything italic and toss in some quotes!) sometime. Great British comedy plus you can understand what an entrapment operation is.
Firefox 2.0 - Spell Rightly.
http://illmob.org/ It's pretty hillarious when he describes the "bust". The feds pound on the door early in the morning. He asks who's there, they say that some cars were broken into and they want to check if his was one of them. So... he gets his shoes on goes out the BACK door to the parking lot. There's guy in a bullet-proof vest guarding his car, who obviously has no idea that he's the guy they're coming to arrest. When he indicates that that's his car, he's like "oh, uh... did you talk to the men inside?" It's freakin hillarious. They should make a TV special on FBI busts gone bad.
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]
Funny that, he gets jail for selling stolen code and MS gets off scott free after stealing the code in the first place!
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't.
Ira
They're making him upgrade to Windows Vista?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
"[Microsoft] has also expressed fears that making its source code public could allow hackers to find security holes in Microsoft products"
Microsoft has had access to the Windows sourcecode since 1.0 and there are still security holes they can't find themselves.
Heck, I'd wager opening the source would actually lower the rate that these security flaws are found.
Well, sure, if you can explain your -- nonsensical -- apparent claim that Microsoft has no business profiting from the sale of an operating system that it created & owns...?
I know that here on Slashdot, bashing Microsoft is always in vogue (it's the new black!), but I can only see a couple meanings to your comment, and neither of them are even remotely reasonable.
1. You feel that Microsoft "forces" you to buy a computer with Windows on it. Last I checked, you could build your own, or buy stock hardware with no Operating System preinstalled. You're not compelled by Microsoft to do anything you don't want to do in that case.
2. You feel that Microsoft has no right to its Windows code base, because they've jacked most of their concepts from someone else. Which is kind of like saying that the people who work on Linux & it's associated applications have no rights to their code because they jacked their concepts from various Unix implementations. [Re-]Implementation of an existing good concept != Theft.
It's all part of this
campaign: Microsoft Spending $120M To Look Smaller
Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday January 23, @06:40PM
from the someone-alert-alanis dept.
Ant writes "Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that Microsoft Corp. will spend $120 million a year on an advertising campaign to fight its image as "a huge American company." That sound you heard while reading the article is my head exploding.
What kind of moron would think they could get source code to ANY closed source product that sells more than 20 copies a year, for such a price?
Last I checked, getting the source code to an active data grid widget for VB5 (years ago, mind you) cost $5000 -- and you had to sign a bunch of NDA's to make sure you coudn't resell it or redistribute it in any form.
I said nothing about whether or not he deserved it, nor was I saying anything about if MS chooses to release their code or not. I also wasn't being terribly serious as you seem to be quite up in arms about these imagined points. I was just sort of making a jab at MS taking over the policing duties after they beat the law themselves. You know..the irony of MS stealing code...and then having their code stolen...Please calm down...
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
or 3. I was making a bad joke.
Realistically, 1 is closer to the truth. having built a new computer lately, I know that I spent several hundred dollars more to build my computer than I would have if I had purchased one pre-built with windows on it. so the answer is that I have to pay for the privledge of NOT buying windows. In other words, I'm paying Microsoft to not use their software. (of course, I'm not paying microsoft, I'm paying the store who in turn is paying the distributer who's paying the manufacturer (like dell) who is paying microsoft for the oem license)
Ira
I seriously doubt that we won't be able to make money. We simply must redefine "Intellectual Property". Today intellectual property is the "semantic" property, i.e. visual art, music, and written word (prose, poetry, or program). Semantics are, unfortunately, hard to concretely define. There are limitations, such as physical media, that change semantic value. If, for example, I take a photograph of a Warhol painting and then publish it with JPEG compression, is it still Warhol's work or my work? It wouldn't be a perfect copy of Warhol, but it wouldn't be my "original" idea. Lets say that I modified the art to make my own statement? How would that be protected? Would I be required to pay royalties to Mr. Warhol's estate? After a point the whole argument becomes absurd, and its only purpose is to keep lawyers employed.
Let's redefine IP as the real "intellect" itself. We can hold that a person's mind is the property of that person, whether the mind is a transcendental entity (the soul) or the mind is a construct of matter (the brain). IP is therefore the mind itself, as well as the constructs of the mind. A person therefore is granted the exclusive and irrevocable right to his or her mind (an "unalienable" right) and he or she is also granted rights to the products for a limited time until a publication or public dissemination (e.g. blog post or CD or website, etc.). Then the author retains only attribution rights, which can be deferred or eliminated contingent upon external contracts.
Now how is this different? A few scenarios will clarify the proposition. Let's take /. posts, for example. When you are formulating your ideas (i.e. before publication), you hold exclusive right to the final product. This is like your personal "trade secret". But, when you click submit, the exclusive right to your product is then eliminated, other than your attribution. You then have the right to say "I wish to post anonymously", but only because /. provides that option and you have agreed to their contract. Corporate rights would be somewhat different. Since individuals work for a corporation, each of them still retains their IP as described above. However, when they meet and discuss their project, they may produce plans and other "extensions" of the mind, which would be governed by mutual contract. However, when the product is released, the authors are given the attribution rights, dependent upon agreements between individual authors and between the authors and the corporation. Therefore a "trade secret" would in fact exist, but it would be much less potent than the current bastardization. Corporations are legal people, but a corporation has no individual mind. Consider a final scenario. You write a program which you publish to the web. Someone compiles it and decides he or she likes it. They contact you about writing some more software. You accept, contingent upon them paying you. Hence, the company can use the software for their purposes, and you get paid. All "intellectual property" should be defined in this manner, because ambiguity is decreased significantly.
Some people are just ridiculously stupid.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
Bill Gates is a Little Teapot
www.linuxpenguin.net
It's illegal for you to do that, but the person you got to steal the book can be tried as well. If the government did it, the thief would be off the hook entirely.
English is easier said than done.
What?! Are they worried that the hackers might fix the "holes" in Windows and there goes MS's support revenue flow? Bwawhawhawhaw!!!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
that you just _cannot_ trust Microsoft...
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
Nope, it would be illegal for you, not because it's entrapment but because you paid someone to comit a crime on your behalf.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
No, if they really wanted to punish him, they'd make him run Windows ME for ten years.
On second thought, that would be too cruel and unusual. Give him the chair instead- that would be much more humane!
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
Well, if the EU keeps having its way with Microsoft, I bet a lot of MS Windows source code will be making it onto Usenet soon... So what then? Can you be criminally punished in the US for releasing or downloading source code directly from Microsoft when said source code is also trivially available in Europe?
On helluva deal...
Apparently noone read the friggin article about this on cnn.com, the guy is a little bastard with numerous prior arrests including several computer crimes, and some form of touching an underage girl.. I'm sure he's your 1337 buddy and all, but from where I'm sitting, the guy is a waste of oxygen and shoulda been locked up long before now.
You write a program which you publish to the web. Someone compiles it and decides he or she likes it. They contact you about writing some more software.
I just happen to be doing that kind of thing with my blogs http://wallpaperfree.blogspot.com/ and the one in my sig, but so far haven't gotten good enough to get to step three of your plan. Nevertheless, I'll do it this way rather than snivel and moan after every pixel and semicolon of everything I produce fretting over somebody around the world didn't chip in their $.035 for something I did. I hear other people out there, and they're pathetic. They draw one frickin' picture and spend the rest of their lives mooing about it. In the amount of time they spend protecting it, they could have filled a whole gallery and moved on!
I wonder if one could do a series of PSAs about great creative minds from the past? Eistein freely gave away E=mc2. How much money did da Vinci earn off his famous engineering drawings? Didn't van Gosh paint half his life for free? If the past creative minds acted the way our present creative minds do, we wouldn't even remember them today.
More like not windows-broken.
emt 377 emt 4
I wholeheartedly vote for the "idiot" label... after all, he did it for a grand total of $40 bucks... that's less than my weekly Starbucks bills.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
This thing is not as black and white as it seems
White: Not having a copy of obviously stolen and very sensitive proprietary information belonging to someone else, whether you jokingly offer it up for sale or not.
Black: Having it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Funny thing, I did have an interview at Microsoft... I had a second interview at Microsoft. I withdrew from the position I was considering since I was offered a better deal locally.
Apparently you can't recognize an apparently failed attempt at a funny post. No skin off my back, because even if it wasn't, I still couldn't give less of a shit what you (as AC nonetheless) thought about me. In fact, I don't even really know why I replied to this, but I'm not cancelling the post now since it would be a waste of my keystrokes.
On a side note, can you really say that Microsoft has no incompetence? Have you seen the list of security flaws, bugs, etc. in their software? That's not to say any other company is perfect either.
And they said zombies weren't real!
Uhm...mostly referring to the whole Apple vs MS fiasco... I don't know about cut and paste code theft, but MS has had a tendancy to say "Hey sure we will work with you" and once they get a good look at their new partners stuff "Oh we are sorry, we are gunna go it alone". And uhm completely legal? I don't quite follow how you can consider what they do completely legal when they have been found, in court, to be doing illegal things. But hey whatever.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Let's see if we can artificially further demonize the work "hacker" some more, eh?
I say go for it. The more the word is diluted the more a proper one will be applied.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)