The Trap Set By the FBI For Half Life 2 Hacker

eldavojohn writes "You might remember the tiny news that Half Life 2 source code was leaked in 2003 ... it is the 6th most visited Slashdot story with over one kilocomment. Well, did anything happen to the source of the leak, the German hacker Axel 'Ago' Gembe? Wired is reporting he was offered a job interview so that Valve could get him into the US and bag him for charges. It's not the first time the FBI tried this trick: 'The same Seattle FBI office had successfully used an identical gambit in 2001, when they created a fake startup company called Invita, and lured two known Russian hackers to the US for a job interview, where they were arrested.'"

Comments

Kilocomment?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many kilocomments are there in a Library of Congress?

Re:Kilocomment?

[Anonymous Crowhead]

None.

Re:Kilocomment?

[Anonymous Coward]

depends ...

Is a kilocomment 1000 or 1024 comments ?!?

If i am supposed to slow down...about telling me how slow

Re:Kilocomment?

[aywwts4]

1000, the story received 1003 comments.

Re:Kilocomment?

[YesIAmAScript]

A kibicomment is 1024 comments.

Re:Kilocomment?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between a Kilobyte(1000) and a Kibibyte. (1024)

The Kibibyte was coined to distinguish the former from the latter.

For more information, please refer to this chart: http://xkcd.com/394/

Re:Kilocomment?

[Anonymous Coward]

"over one kilocomment" turns meme in 3, 2, 1

Re:Kilocomment?

[telchine]

"over one kilocomment" turns meme in 3, 2, 1

In Soviet Russia, all your kilocomments belong to us!

You're doing your memes all wrong!

FAIL!

Would you believe it, there's a serious video on youtube already that describes the difference between a kibicomment and a kilocomment!

Re:Kilocomment?

[hairyfeet]

What I don't understand is why we allowed some asshole RAM and HDD manufacturers to steal our word? Megabyte,Kilobyte,Gigabyte these things already had well established meanings,yet some asshate manufacturers trying to beat each other to 1 Gigabyte of storage(yes I'm old enough to remember how it started) decided to change the rules of the game so they could win,and now we are supposed to use that lame Kibibyte crap? Screw that,let THEM change! Yes I'm old and crotchety,but it they were OUR words first! Now get off my lawn!

Re:Kilocomment?

[geekoid]

First one, then the other...

Re:Kilocomment?

[Anonymous Coward]

The story linked in the summary received 1027 comments.

Re:Kilocomment?

[EvanED]

What I don't understand is why we allowed some asshole RAM and HDD manufacturers to steal our word?

Speaking as someone who grew up learning that "kilo-" means 1000, what I don't understand why we allowed some asshole CS people to steal our prefix?

Re:Kilocomment?

[omeomi]

well, aywwts4 is clearly a hard drive manufacturer.

Re:Kilocomment?

[Anonymous Coward]

This new meme was thought of by shampoo.

Re:Kilocomment?

[Timothy Brownawell]

Is a kilocomment 1000 or 1024 comments ?!?

Metric or Imperial?

Re:Kilocomment?

[hairyfeet]

First of all (A) it was a joke,which not surprisingly the mods didn't get so I'm surprised you even got to see it at all. And (B) it was partly aimed at the asshat HDD manufacturers that put in the teenyiest tiniest letters they can possibly print on the box "Oh,BTW 500Gb isn't ACTUALLY 500Gb,because we don't follow the same rules as every OS ever made." Why don't YOU try working in a repair shop all day and listening to Joe customer rant about how you're ripping him off because "He paid for a 500Gb upgrade and this this is only 487!" Like you can actually skim bytes off a HDD. Why don't YOU trying explain to Joe average IQ the difference between 1000 and 1024 and why that means he ain't getting what he paid for. Trust me,not fun.

I swear if I could write a patch that would make Windows just lie to them about the size I'd do it in a heartbeat. At least with RAM they buy 1Gb they get a little more and are happy. You'd think as much money as the HDD manufacturers are making it wouldn't kill them to give the consumer a couple more Gb.

Re:Kilocomment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. This makes your earlier joke even less funny.

In a sense its an achievement.

Re:Kilocomment?

[Zencyde]

I run Ubuntu and it clearly distinguishes between kilobyte and kibibyte. As far as I'm concerned, SI prefix continuity takes place over computer science elitists. If it weren't for the computer science community being lazy, we'd be using 1,000 as it should be used. But alas... 2^10 is just so much easier.

Re:Kilocomment?

[cryptoluddite]

Speaking as someone who grew up learning that "kilo-" means 1000, what I don't understand why we allowed some asshole CS people to steal our prefix?

Because base-10 is soooo 1900s. Get with the program.

--
One-one was a race horse, One-two was one too.
One-one won one race, One-two won one two.

Re:Kilocomment?

[EvanED]

First of all (A) it was a joke,which not surprisingly the mods didn't get so I'm surprised you even got to see it at all.

It's not at -1 yet, and I read at 0.

And (B) it was partly aimed at the asshat HDD manufacturers that put in the teenyiest tiniest letters they can possibly print on the box "Oh,BTW 500Gb isn't ACTUALLY 500Gb,because we don't follow the same rules as every OS ever made."

I have two responses: (1) so it was a joke, but it really wasn't a joke. (2) But it is actually 500 GB, or at least would be if CS people were sane. It wasn't so bad with kilo, but now that we're often measuring data in terabytes, the error is ridiculous... almost 10%! Even GB is 7% off. It's long past time to drop using base 10 prefixes that have had meanings for hundreds of years for things that aren't base 10. The HDD manufactures are right, it's the OSes that are lying.

Re:Kilocomment?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does the scouter say about his power level?

It's over 9 KILOLEVELS!!!!11

Re:Kilocomment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that, when you say 1000, you really mean 8000, because you're talking about bytes. If 1024 bothers you, why doesn't the use of "byte" to mean "8 bits" bother you? You're already using binary! Do you see the gross inconsistency in using base-10 when talk about bytes? Not only are you spreading confusion everywhere people talk about bytes, but you're also being completely inconsistent. If you want to use base-10, talk about bits--like we already do! kilobit = 1000 bits, kilobyte = 8192 bits, damn it!

Re:Kilocomment?

[Viperpete]

Don't you mean:

Because base-10 is soooo 11101101100 to 11111001111s.

Re:Kilocomment?

[johny42]

Every base is base-10... in base-10.

Re:Kilocomment?

[hairyfeet]

(A) It was a joke for the geeks,since we do actually know the difference. I also added the crotchety bit and "Get off my lawn" for emphasis. (B) I don't really care WHAT the HDD manufacturers want to measure in,hell they can measure in ramen noodles for all I care, although I do find it odd that until the "race for 1 gigabyte" they actually reported in base 2.

The problem isn't that,the problem is their damned box labeling! Have you looked for the "its base 10,not base 2" label on a HDD box lately? It has gotten so damned tiny I'm going to have to buy one of those big ass magnifying glasses like they used in WW2 to spot German defense positions from aerial photos just to show that damned label to my customers! If they weren't trying to be sneaky or hide it from the customer,then why not simply put in on the front,right below the main label? Because the last two I bought had it in print that even with my 20/20 eyesight I had trouble reading and one you had to actually pull a sticker off the box to even read it at all!

And as one of the earlier posters pointed out it makes NO damned sense! Because we all know that a BYTE is 8 bits,yes? So anything with BYTE in it should be on orders of 8,NOT ten. So the word simply doesn't work. And as another poster pointed out with the Tb range becoming common the difference is really becoming staggering. And now the size has gotten so huge lying to make it sound bigger is kind of pointless. So why not simply label them back into a form that nearly every OS on the planet uses? After all anything over 1Tb is pretty much a shitload of data,whether that shitload be in base 2 or 10.

Re:Kilocomment?

[jonbryce]

Just HDD manufacturers. When you buy an 8GB RAM stick you get 8,589,934,592 bytes of RAM, just like you should. When you buy an 8GB hard drive, you only get 8,000,000,000 bytes of HDD space.

Re:Kilocomment?

[shutdown -p now]

"Kilo" is a SI prefix, and it had well-defined meaning only for SI units. Which a byte isn't.

Re:Kilocomment?

[Anonymous Coward]

"One-two won one two."

Wouldn't that be too?

Re:Kilocomment?

[Faylone]

Shouldn't it be "In Soviet Russia, all our kilocomments are belong to you!"?

Re:Kilocomment?

[Count Fenring]

So... a prefix in English got overloaded in a different context. Shocking!

And the issue isn't really whether it was a good or bad idea to use kilobyte to recognize the computationally significant grouping instead of 1000. The question is, is 1024 bytes what we mean by a kilobyte, when we have need to speak of such things. The answer being "Yes, dammit."

In absence of a strong reason to change, common usage defines language. The hard drive manufacturers are using a definition no one uses outside the context of the outsides of hard drive boxes.

Re:Kilocomment?

[cez]

HDD manufacturers couldn't give us 1024... where would the secret NSA data go?

Re:Kilocomment?

[shutdown -p now]

GP was ranting that "kilo" means "1000". My point was that it only means that when applied to SI units; since byte is not a SI unit, "kilobyte" can mean absolutely anything, so the fact that it means "1024" bytes is perfectly normal (as that's what is convenient for the users of the term).

Re:Kilocomment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but there's no edit after post. I couldn't even post a mea culpa due to post timeout. It's really more like /.. sometimes: two steps forward, one step backward.

Re:Kilocomment?

[Count Fenring]

Ah, then we are in agreement.

Re:Kilocomment?

[EvanED]

The problem isn't that,the problem is their damned box labeling! Have you looked for the "its base 10,not base 2" label on a HDD box lately?

My point is that it's dumb that they have to put it on there in the first place.

And as one of the earlier posters pointed out it makes NO damned sense! Because we all know that a BYTE is 8 bits,yes? So anything with BYTE in it should be on orders of 8,NOT ten.

1) Why? What does the number of bits in a byte have to do with the number of bytes in a kilobyte?

2) You're still wrong, because kilo- isn't an order of 8 (unless you count fractional ones; 1024 = 8^(3 1/3)). Maybe a kilobyte should be 512 bytes, because that's the closest power of eight to 1000.

So the word simply doesn't work.

So we're agree. We shouldn't use "kilobyte".

And as another poster pointed out with the Tb range becoming common the difference is really becoming staggering.

Yeah, that was me. Which is why we should stop using what are base-10 prefixes everywhere else (and aren't even uniformly base 2 in CS, even outside of HDDs) to mean things that aren't base 10!

Re:Kilocomment?

[EvanED]

So since "comment" isn't an SI unit, "kilocomment" doesn't have a well-defined meaning?

I guess timothy should have defined how many comments are in a kilocomment so I don't interpret it as 934 or 1187 since they are both about a thousand.

Re:Kilocomment?

[EvanED]

If 1024 bothers you, why doesn't the use of "byte" to mean "8 bits" bother you?

Because "byte" didn't already have a well-established meaning of "10 bits" before we decided to make it 8?

Re:Kilocomment?

[EvanED]

So anything with BYTE in it should be on orders of 8,NOT ten.

Oh, and just out of curiosity, how big should a kilobyte have been on the CDC 6600, which used "byte" to refer to a 12-bit entity? Should it have been 1728 bytes?

Re:Kilocomment?

[Gnavpot]

Don't you mean:

Because base-10 is soooo 11101101100 to 11111001111s.

Don't you mean:

Because base-1010 is soooo 11101101100 to 11111001111s.

Re:Kilocomment?

[Philip Shaw]

ITYM TB, not Tb. There is a factor of 8 difference, and I think you would be very unhappy to get a Tb HDD when you paid for a TB one.

Re:Kilocomment?

[hairyfeet]

Why exactly is it dumb? You do know that 99.999% of the world is NOT made up of CS and slashdot geeks,right? It is made up of ordinary Joes and Janes that are quite used to having products where if it says a pound you actually get a pound or a gallon gets a gallon.

And you do know that this whole was NOT started to "make things right" or "make the HDDs match the metric system" right? It was.....I know this will be a shocker,wait for it......MARKETING! That's right! Just good old fashioned "we found a loophole that'll make our stuff sound better than it is" marketing. You see grasshopper,back in the day(as my oldest likes to say when dinosaurs roamed the earth and clothes sucked) there was this really big hype built up around the "Race to 1" as some of us called it. And because the HDD manufacturers had a LOT more trouble with stability and making profitable yields,and because the hype meant that whoever got their first would make a VERY big profit,they decided to market their base 2 900Mb HDD as 1Gb in base 10. And it worked. I can't remember which company reached the magic number,but they made a really nice profit from it.

So you see,even when it started it wasn't about semantics or getting the decimal systems to match,it was good old profit motive. But the simple fact is like 52x on CD burners it is kinda pointless. Because we have reached sizes where even without lying to the consumer the HDDs will keep right on selling. So why lie? And if they are doing to "make the numbers match" as a decimal lover like yourself seems to think,then why go to SO much trouble to hide it? Why not put it on the box where the consumer can actually read it without a magnifying glass the size of your head?

Because the simple fact is while You and I understand the difference between 1000 and 1024 Joe and Jane does not. They find it increasingly difficult to even FIND anything about it on the box and get frustrated that they don't get what they pay for. And making customers feel screwed is never of the good,especially when it is trivial to fix. The last couple of Maxtor DiamondMax drives I picked up for customers said 200Gb but actually gave 203Gb. Thanks to that simple change I will be looking at the Maxtor drives when I am looking for a client,and I hope it is something that others will pick up on and that Maxtor wasn't a fluke. And just be glad the GPU card manufacturers didn't pick up this nasty trait. Can you imagine how pissed gamers would be if their 1Gb graphics card came out as only 900Mb? But if you want the labels to continue,fine. Simply make it so the customer can actually KNOW what they are buying. That seems fair,doesn't it?

Re:Kilocomment?

[EvanED]

You do know that 99.999% of the world is NOT made up of CS and slashdot geeks,right?

Which is why that 00.001% of the world that is CS and /. geeks should stop contradicting the 99.999% of the world that thinks 'kilo' means 1000. ;-)

(You were being facetious with your percentage, but it only gave me fodder I had to take.)

And you do know that this whole was NOT started to "make things right" or "make the HDDs match the metric system" right? It was.....I know this will be a shocker,wait for it......MARKETING!

Oh, I fully agree. The HDD manufacturers were certainly right for the wrong reason... but they're still right.

Now back to your first point. I agree that there should be a label on the boxes, but only because most OSes "still" report in base-2 units. It's for that reason that the labels are required, not because they're selling you less than they say or something like that (because I still maintain they aren't). I also think more consumer friendly labeling would be nice. For instance, put on the label "500 GiB / 537 GiB" or something. (Though maybe we'd disagree on whether that was more consumer friendly, I suspect it would at least help during those obnoxious support calls.)

Re:Kilocomment?

[EvanED]

(The "537 GiB" was, of course, supposed to be "537 GB")

Re:Kilocomment?

[DoubleReed]

The really silly thing is that HDD block sizes come in 512 byte. (They are talking about moving to 4096 byte soon).

"Number of blocks" is the most natural way to report disk size. However, this is usually a decimal number.

Re:Kilocomment?

[hairyfeet]

Well damn,I am truly shocked. No fanboi-ism,no "ur an idiot for thinking that!",just a well thought out counterargument,and one that I actually support completely! Bravo! I agree that the whole confusion from the consumer would end with a simple line saying "xGB=x.xGiB" in plain,easy to read,and clearly visible labeling,preferably right below the big "xGB!" label on the front. Now if we can only get the irritating HDD manufacturers to actually implement it.

Of course I think that is about as likely as getting up in the morning and reading "MSFT announces they are going to give out the source code to Win9X for free so the OSS guys can fix all the bugs they left and make really cheap embedded devices with it!". Which of course will be right after the world starts spinning backwards and the seas turn to Bacardi. You know,right after the twelfth day of the month of never ;-)

Old News

[VoltCurve]

Really, quite old news. This was reported on right after it happened. If I remember right though, Gabe claimed that they had succeeded in tricking the hacker. They did speak with him on the phone

Re:Old News

[Taagehornet]

You've probably got the article The Final Hours of Half-Life 2 in mind; it was posted on GameSpot back in November 2004. Gabe Newell tells about his encounter with DaGuy on page 21 I'm Getting My Crowbar.

The 25-page article covers quite a bit of ground. Slightly dated perhaps, but still a great read.

shouldn't be legal

[nurb432]

I don't care what the guy has done, tricks like this should not be legal.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[eison]

Why not?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Culture20]

You really thought you were getting that free boat, didn't you?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[alxkit]

they're not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment/

Re:shouldn't be legal

[sampson7]

One of my favorite law stories ever:

The judges in the small county I used to work in (Charles County, MD) were notoriously tough on cocaine dealers. The neighboring jurisdiction was so overwhemled with drugs that drug dealers in that county were typically given much lighter sentences. The disparity was so great that smart dealers refused to deal in Charles County. Instead, they would arrange deals next to the border without actually ever crossing into Charles Co.

So when the Charles County Sheriff's Office wanted to mount a major drug sting, they moved the "Welcome to Charles County" sign back a hundred feet or so, and would arrange deals just across the border. We put away a lot of bad people for a long time. Brilliant.

Um... Yeah. I have no problem with this.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not?

Because of style.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[SoapBox17]

From wikipedia: "Entrapment is the act of a law enforcement agent in inducing a person to commit an offence which the person would not have, or was unlikely to have, otherwise committed."

This is not a case of entrapment because the person was not induced to commit an offense. He was induced to come to the country after the offense was committed.

A good example of entrapment would be if the FBI tricked him in to coming in the country and then arrested him for coming in to the country illegally (invalid visa or some such).

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Threni]

Wasting money protecting source code after the event. I'm a taxpayer - I don't give a shit about it. If someone releases a game based on it, follow the money. Some guy with some source code - big deal.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

It's OK that you screwed up the meaning of entrapment since your link is broken, but since the law enforcement officials didn't induce him to do something illegal, your comment is just dumb.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[citylivin]

"We put away a lot of bad people for a long time. Brilliant. "

While an interesting story, I hope you don't believe that anyone put away for dealing illegal drugs is a "bad" person. Drugs are by and large a choice that effects no one except yourself. You can get into debates using crackheads (who are universally hated) if you'd like, but the point still remains. If all drugs were legal, these "bad people" would simply cease to exsist, or at worst become coca farmers.

Dont even get me started on the "evilness" of users, whom im sure you had no moral problems in also arresting.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

so you dont have a problem with crackheads breaking into cars and homes to steal money for drugs ? or driving high on meth and running over innocent bystanders ? or going on murderous rampages high on coke ? if they were legal, they would do the same thing. but more often. drugs are bad for society..just look at the havens of crime lax drug policies have caused in some communities.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[jcr]

If the perp is stupid enough to travel to a country where he's wanted, that's evolution in action.

-jcr

Re:shouldn't be legal

[hcgpragt]

Well Sir, I like my government to be trustworthy. They 'won' a few bad-guys but send out a very significant signal: don't trust us.

by the way: What is wrong with one county talking to the others to get their politics more into one line? democracy at work :)

Re:shouldn't be legal

[LingNoi]

I'm not arguging with your point, however let me get this right..

The damage is already been done, the source code is useless anyway as any company found using it would have been breaking the law. However, they thought it was wise to waste money getting this guy over to the US so they could spend more money on him for a trial, lawyer and place to live?

Way to waste the tax payers money, not that it matters at this point. I guess Gabe feels better now that he got his own back after being the idiot that let him steal the code in the first place.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[jcr]

if they were legal, they would do the same thing.

Why didn't this happen back when all drugs were available over-the-counter?

-jcr

Re:shouldn't be legal

[duguk]

that's a problem of money, not of drugs :o)

Re:shouldn't be legal

[jamesh]

I have no problem with this sort of trap. Stupid criminals deserve to get caught.

There is a guy in Australia who fled to another country to get out of being punished for crimes he committed in Australia. He was extradited back to Australia and is now appealing the process leading to his extradition. Now _that_ is wrong.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[bunratty]

The damage has already been done? Huh? You are aware that in most cases arrests occur after the commission of a crime, right?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear Amsterdam is a horrible place to live. Oh wait..

Re:shouldn't be legal

[mrchaotica]

It's not an issue of protecting the source code -- I think even the FBI is minimally competent enough to realize that cat's out of the bag -- it's an issue of punishing the guy for the computer tresspass etc..

Re:shouldn't be legal

[MadnessASAP]

I have a problem the same way I have a problem with someone stealing for booze. or getting drunk and driving over someone, or going on a murderous rampage while drunk. All of which happen far more often then the crackhead equivalents.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine yourself in the situation where your source code got stolen?
If I'd have the opportunity to catch the thief by sending a couple of mails, I'd try to catch it myself.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

So flammable means INflammable???

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

"If someone releases a game based on it, follow the money"

that's some great advice right there- right up until companies stop investing in producing the newest games because everyone turns a blind eye when their work is stolen and exploited for profit

Re:shouldn't be legal

[commodoresloat]

I think breaking into cars and homes, and running over innocent bystanders, and going on murderous rages are all illegal acts in most states in the US (can't account for Alaska). I could be wrong though.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[qbzzt]

Wasting money protecting source code after the event.

Any time the police arrests a criminal, it is by definition after the event. Sometimes the damage can be undone, as in theft. Sometimes it cannot, as in murder. We still want criminals punished to deter others.

If you truly don't want source code leaks punished because it's a waste of your tax dollars, you're welcome to lobby to change the law. However, I'm sure other tax payers, such as corporations that own source code, would lobby to keep it.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[LingNoi]

My point is that it's a waste of time, effort and money getting a 21 year old kid over to the states to arrest him.

Valve should have better spent that money on securing their networks, however that's what happens when you're an "all microsoft shop" as ex-microsoft employee Gabe is.

After finishing the article they didn't get him anyway, they failed. He's still not in prison to this day so I'm finding the whole article kinda pointless.

The title should have been "Half Life 2 hacker gets away with it", but that's what happens when timothy posts a story.. : /

Re:shouldn't be legal

[karlwilson]

I love how this was modded down. What a joke. The parent is exactly right. Drugs like cocaine, meth, etc. all distort the perception of whoever takes them to the point where they can and DO harm others around them with or without realizing they're doing so.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Tony Hoyle]

It depends on where he committed the crime. He's a german citizen commiting a crime in germany (and he was punished for it under german law) then that FBI can GTFO as far as I'm concerned. If they were that bothered they could have applied for extradition rather that using underhand tricks.

No different from the Dimitri Skylarov case, except he was arrested for something that wasn't even a crime in his home country.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[mrchaotica]

I hope you don't believe that anyone put away for dealing illegal drugs is a "bad" person.

Dealing drugs is different from using them. Drug dealing is often associated with other crimes: robbery, assault, murder, etc. While I agree with you that choosing to sell drugs is not necessarily indicative of a bad person in itself, and I preemptively agree with you that a lot of that ancillary crime is caused by the very fact that drug dealing is illegal, the fact that the dealer is willing to accept the circumstances and participate in that crime in order to deal makes him a bad person.

If all drugs were legal, these "bad people" would simply cease to exsist, or at worst become coca farmers.

I disagree: if all drugs were legal, the people currently selling them would move onto some other lucrative, illegal activity. For example, the Mafia didn't cease to exist when Prohibition ended and they couldn't run their speakeasys anymore; they just stepped up their extortion, money laundering, etc. to compensate.

In other words, people are not inherently bad because they choose to deal drugs, but the illegality of dealing drugs attracts bad people to it.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[kingrooster]

Haha, you're funny. On the whole, drug users do commit more crimes than non-drug users. I'll give you that. On the other hand, poor people commit more crimes than rich people. Young people commit more crimes than old people. Punish the crime and treat the addict. Don't ignore illegal drug trafficking, regulate it. Drug use and sale in and of itself should not be a crime.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[LateArthurDent]

Why not?

Because it bypasses protections established by extradition treaties (or lack thereof). How would you like to be tricked into visiting Iran, and then be prosecuted for posting some offensive comment on slashdot?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[onefriedrice]

Well Sir, I like my government to be trustworthy

And I want free icecream sundaes and ponies.
Personally, I'm much more concerned that my government is trustworthy with me, so let's start there.

They 'won' a few bad-guys but send out a very significant signal: don't trust us.

Yeah. So? Is it bad that "bad guys" don't trust us? They already know what will happen to them if they get caught by us, so what does it matter if they trust us or not? I think it's safe to assume that most "bad guys" probably don't trust us already, or at least the smart ones.

Are you also against under-cover officers tricking drug dealers into dealing with them? This is real life, and sometimes you have to lie to catch the bad guys.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Ravon Rodriguez]

two words: personal responsibility. If they break into cars, they should go to jail. Not because they were on crack. If the drugs are impacting their life and other people's lives, then its their responsibility to get off drugs or face the consequences, not the state's responsibility to make them. People get arrested for drunk driving all the time; it doesn't mean drinking should be illegal, it just means that drunk drivers should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really that naive?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Maguscrowley]

Where are the studies saying it didn't. Saying it did or didn't happen this way before though does not provide direct evidence that it will or will not happen today.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[ijakings]

If you trusted a government to begin with you have a naive view of the world.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Baton Rogue]

Way to waste the tax payers money, not that it matters at this point.

Are you serious? So then they should not waste taxpayer's money arresting a bank robber? They've already gotten away with the money, so what's the point?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately it is legal. If they invite them to do some hacking for them in the USA then arrested them for it it would be illegal, but because it's only visiting the USA.

The real issue I see is where the crime was committed. Was it committed in the USA because the server/network was in the USA or was it overseas because the internet connect used was overseas.

We can't keep doing this kind of ad-hoc job of policing the internet. Global leaders need to have a carefully planned out management for laws to govern the internet. Until we have a set of laws that can be applied to the internet we will continue to have problems like hackers and the mega spam groups.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Ravon Rodriguez]

I agree completely. Unless they can prove that it's likely to be a repeat offense, there's no benefit to the American taxpayer.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[nurb432]

Im glad you don't make the laws or "enforce" them.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[jhoegl]

Uh, if the crime was commited on US soil, it is the jurisdiction of where the crime was comitted. The FBI had to resort to such tactics because for whatever reason the German Authorities could not capture this person. FYI, if you dont know the crime was commited on Valve computers, meaning the original crime was performed in the USA. I wonder what your reasoning is... criminal is my guess.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[qbzzt]

Well Sir, I like my government to be trustworthy.

You do realize you're talking about an organization run by politicians, don't you? Do you really think that's a realistic option?

I don't want my government to be at a disadvantage compared to criminals. When the government commits to something, it should follow through. But when what appears to be a private organization does it, it's OK.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[AK Marc]

Because fraud is illegal. Con games in order to deprive someone of something are illegal. The government should never partake of otherwise illegal means in order to "catch" anyone. If you can't get them playing within the rules, let them go. If the government is willing to set up someone, what makes you think they won't set you up? They have proven they are willing to lie and cheat to get what they want. Are you ok with that if it is what you want, but not ok if it isn't what you want? I find that a inconsistent and hypocritical stance, and I take the one where they shouldn't lie ever. If I were emperor of the universe, I'd pass a law that any police officer that lies, any judge, prosecuter, or such that misleads a suspect, anyone that "tricks" anyone through deception to reveal something should be immediately sacked. If there is a proven history of it, they should be prosecuted for deceiving the public. Those in the positions of authority should not be allowed to abuse it. Cops have fought in court for the right to lie. As such, they are self-confirmed liars who will abuse the law in order to uphold the parts they think important (without ever making it official what is and isn't important, and that may change at any time). That's not a very good job of "protecting and serving."

Re:shouldn't be legal

[cayenne8]

"Because it bypasses protections established by extradition treaties (or lack thereof). How would you like to be tricked into visiting Iran, and then be prosecuted for posting some offensive comment on slashdot?"

I wouldn't be stupid enough to go to Iran.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Savione]

It's sad that a government agency has to resort to deception to achieve its aims, but this isn't the first time, and it won't be the last. However, if Valve is the one pressing charges, then wouldn't it be a civil case? Why is the FBI, which does criminal cases, intervening?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Vinegar Joe]

No different from the Dimitri Skylarov case, except he was arrested for something that wasn't even a crime in his home country.

I wonder what American citizen Gary Lauck thinks of German law.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Baton Rogue]

The FBI has also indicted him on charges of creating the Agobot malware, which was used in a distributed denial of service attack in 2003, so yea, he's a repeat offender.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not?

How about... they lied, which is dishonest... and do you really want a lier, cheat, and scam artist enforcing our laws?

What other lies have these people told in the name of justice?

More importantly, why should I or anyone else believe anything said by the FBI now? They have proven that they lie and use shady tactics, so how do we know that anything they tell us is true?

Honesty & integrity are the two most important traits of any law enforcement officer. These tactics show that they have neither.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Dishevel]

If you commit a crime in a country. Then at some time later decide to go there. You get what you get. End of Discussion.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

> Um... Yeah. I have no problem with this.

You have no problem with cops being dishonest?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[tedu_again]

because crack and meth didn't exist back in the day

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Crack and cocaine are not legal in Amsterdam, only Marijuana. Nice try.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[jaredbpd]

"A boat's a boat, but the mystery box could be anything.

It could even be a boat!"

Re:shouldn't be legal

[nbert]

So when the Charles County Sheriff's Office wanted to mount a major drug sting, they moved the "Welcome to Charles County" sign back a hundred feet or so, and would arrange deals just across the border. We put away a lot of bad people for a long time. Brilliant.

I think nobody would have a problem with such a trick. But in my eyes it's not related because the laws and jurisdiction is the same in Charles County and the county they thought to be in*. They get charged for the very same crime - the attitude of the judge does not (formally) play a role.

It's a totally different story when the FBI tricks someone to enter the US and he gets charged for crimes not committed on US soil - especially when the person is from a country having a extradition treaty with the US (Germany is one of them). In this case extradition is not even necessary because Valve can sue in Germany just like any European company. Even US porn companies sue individuals in the EU for pirating their "movies" so it can't be that hard ;)

In my opinion the possible consequences of a crime should be well defined. If you deal with dope in Singapore and get the death penalty it's tragic, but consequential - it's well known that Singapore has some of the strictest laws regarding drugs and we can't tell a sovereign country how they punish crimes committed within their borders. Imagine the outrage if Singapore sent out invitations to the Dutch. I know that would be surreal, but it would follow the same reasoning.

*Feel free to correct me on this - maybe you are talking about the counties which belong to Virginia and I don't know much about drug laws in the states of the US.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Mistshadow2k4]

right up until companies stop investing in producing the newest games because everyone turns a blind eye when their work is stolen and exploited for profit

Why should I care? I'm among a growing minority of people who don't buy games at all anymore because we're sick of being screwed over by game companies and their DRM-coding henchmen. Ever hear of Starfoce? SecuRom? If not, look them up before you start defending those poor, poor game companies. Of course, you probably work for them and think they're incapable of doing wrong no matter what they do.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[SpottedKuh]

Wasting money protecting source code after the event. I'm a taxpayer [...] If someone releases a game based on it, follow the money.

Yeah, as a taxpayer, I'm really upset too when the police waste money trying to arrest a murderer after the event. I mean, the victim's already dead, so they're wasting money trying to protect him. If someone releases a book about the murder, then follow the money. Otherwise, big deal.

In case the previous paragraph didn't drip enough sarcasm in your direction, let's try this another way. It's the job of the police to investigate crimes that have occurred and to arrest those that they have reasonable grounds to believe are guilty. In this case, police have reasonable grounds to arrest him on suspicion of having committed a crime (some variant of breaking into a computer). What does it matter how much or how little he profited from the crime? That's for the judge to take into account, not the police.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[physicsphairy]

Your points may apply to mere users, and I might even go so far as to agree with you.

But don't insult our intelligence by saying drug dealers are just average joes.

First of all, there is a huge difference between skirting the law for an occasional high, and making your living off of entirely criminal activities. In the first case, you weigh the crime against the rest of the persons life, and figure the minor infraction is innocuous enough not to put a taint on everything else. In the second case, the person's life is defined by committing crime. I don't care if we all decide that even the worst aspects of dealing--like peddling to children--are 'victimless', that doesn't make an honorable living.

And this shows up in a more important way--the commission of auxiliary crimes. There are some quite horrible things done in association with the drug trade, especially where many originate south of the United States. The 'drug deal gone bad' is not some hollywood creation... that's real life, bro. Before you defend drug dealers as pursuing an intrinsically victimless activity I suggest you do a little research (www.criminalsearches.com) and see what else is their rap sheets. I personally refuse to do drugs not out of respect for the law, but because of the nature of the industry the money spent to procure them would ultimately help to finance.

Conclusion, drug users: some good some bad. Drug dealers: mostly bad.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[MarkvW]

Tricking criminals is wrong, obviously. If a criminal is so smart that he cannot be caught without trickery, then he must remain free because he is too valuable to our society!

Yeah right, I rose to the flamebait!

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

What is your point? Entrapment relates to getting someone to commit a crime that they wouldn't normally commit.. this guy committed the crime already with no entrapment. The arrest has nothing to do with entrapment issues.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[OrangeTide]

Huh? If you broke a law and got away with it because it's too hard to prosecute through international courts, then count yourself lucky and avoid ever visiting the country that you pissed off. (This is how I used to get out of paying speeding tickets)

As someone who lives in the same country as Valve, if I did this, they could easily drag my ass into civil court and the FBI can easily grab me and haul me into a criminal court (assuming I committed a crime). Their jurisdiction is the boarders of the United States of America. If you don't like it, then don't visit nations that have a police force.

If the FBI like threatened to hide his grandmother's medication unless he came over. that would be a totally different story, and I would seriously hope those kind of tactics would be illegal. (I'm not certain HOW they would be illegal, but I would certainly make demands to my representatives that something be done about it)

But in common law systems it's legal to get someone to enter your jurisidction on false pretenses. The law of the land is the law of the land. When you leave your homeland, it's not like you have some special exception to all the laws in the nation you're visiting. When I visit China I try my vest to obey Chinese laws rather pretending I only have to follow US laws.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[DerekLyons]

Drugs are by and large a choice that effects no one except yourself.

Right. My brother wasn't in an accident (and lost two months of work) caused by a guy driving high on weed. My neighbor didn't have his car stereo stolen by a guy getting money for smack. One of my friends wasn't held up at knife point by a guy obviously seeking a fix of something. The drugs used by three perps affected nobody but themselves... The accident, theft, and hold up are all products of their imaginations.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Jekler]

What makes you think it would be a civil case if the victim of a crime presses charges? A civil case is when the victim asks a civil court for recompense. A criminal case is when criminal charges are brought against the perpetrator. By definition, if the victim is pressing criminal charges, it's a criminal case.

I'm also not sure how you think law enforcement should work if officers must be honest in pursuing criminals. Asking people if they're a cop before you deal with them would be hugely effective. It rules out any form of undercover work, and it would generally be really difficult to trap the criminals because you'd always have to tell them why you wanted to setup a meeting.

::phone rings::
Drug Dealer: "Hello?"
Police Officer: "Hi, this is officer Johnson. I'm just making a courtesy call to let you know I'll be stopping by to inspect your home for drugs. As you know, because of the non-deception act of 2009, an unannounced visit would be dishonest."
Drug Dealer: "Thanks for the call."

::1 hour later an officer knocks on the door::
Drug Dealer: "Who are you?"
Police Officer: "I'm officer Jackson. Officer Johnson got a call and couldn't make it so he sent me in his place to do the inspection."
Drug Dealer: "I call deception! I was told officer Johnson would be doing the inspection! That's a violation of my right to not be deceived!"

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it's not fraud, and it's not illegal. What the government did, arresting a foreign criminal who committed a crime in the USA, is perfectly legal. How they got him to enter into the USA, by setting up a fake job interview, is also perfectly legal. I can set up fake job interviews with as many people as I want. So can the feds. It's not against the law.

But what most people seem to be missing is the sheer stupidity of the criminal. If a company I had hacked into, stolen source code from, and embarrassed publicly suddenly invited me to their corporate HQ in a foreign country, I would be a weee bit suspcious.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[RiotingPacifist]

1) steal code
2) realize code is copyrighted and useless
3) ????
4) no profit

erm how can valve loose money because somebody stole their code?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[SLi]

No. There are no charges in a civil case.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[RiotingPacifist]

replace Iran with UK, because of that violent pornography you watch!

Re:shouldn't be legal

[shiba_mac]

For example, the Mafia didn't cease to exist when Prohibition ended and they couldn't run their speakeasys anymore; they just stepped up their extortion, money laundering, etc. to compensate.

In other words, people are not inherently bad because they choose to deal drugs, but the illegality of dealing drugs attracts bad people to it.

Well exactly, But few activities are lucrative enough to allow these bad people to wield the kind of power that drug money brings.

I think it's safe to assume that everyone who wants to do drugs in our society is already doing them. Why give the potential taxes to criminals?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dealing drugs is different from using them. Drug dealing is often associated with other crimes: robbery, assault, murder, etc."

Well, geee. You put all the friendly neighborhood heads in jail, and now you are complaining that only the scum is left! What really did you expect?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[RiotingPacifist]

erm they still break the law when they break into my car.

Do you have a problem with alcoholics that steal money for alcohol? or DUI and run over incocent bystanders? or get drunk and fight and stab people? woo bring back prohibition!!!!!

yeah Amsterdam is such a hell hole!

Re:shouldn't be legal

[RiotingPacifist]

Are you really that naive?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[mikesd81]

It's borderline entrapment.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[genner]

Wasting money protecting source code after the event. I'm a taxpayer - I don't give a shit about it. If someone releases a game based on it, follow the money. Some guy with some source code - big deal.

On the other hand Valve pays their taxes too amd they do care.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Viree]

I am still confused. Where's the car analogy for this case?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Don't we keep saying "if you don't like the rules in place X, go somewhere else"? So people make the choice to go somewhere else and you applaud tricking them into actually being in place X so you keep keep them inside your rules anyway?

On another note, how F***ing stupid are your juries? If state actors have moved the signs, they've moved the boundary - the boundary is, for the purposes of deciding which laws you're acting under, where the sign is. You cannot possibly claim that deliberately misdirecting someone as to the nature of the laws they're operating under is the-right-thing-to-do (tm), especially when you're charged with the delivery of justice.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[mikesd81]

But to be tricked to come there is underhanded and entrapment. Not to mention I think it may even fall under the 5th Amendment if you're admitting to doing the crime even to take the job, fake or not.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[geekoid]

Yeah. becasue Drugs are bad, the TV told me so.

That arrest was not about putting bad people away, it was about making money. If they wanted to stop it they would openly patrol. Otherwise, why lure bad people into your county?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Irish_Samurai]

I disagree: if all drugs were legal, the people currently selling them would move onto some other lucrative, illegal activity. For example, the Mafia didn't cease to exist when Prohibition ended and they couldn't run their speakeasys anymore; they just stepped up their extortion, money laundering, etc. to compensate.

Or they got into Politics like the Kennedys.

Why would an organization who engaged in illegal activities related to drugs suddenly move on to other illegal activities just because drugs became legalized? It makes no sense. Drug dealers ARE businessmen. There is A LOT of money in dealing, because demand is high and risks are high. It is no different than shipping magnates making large chunks of cash by moving LEGAL products through DANGEROUS areas. The danger here is just relative.

So a dealing operation gets an in to legitimate business practice, you think they won't go "ok lets SCALE this bitch now that we won't go to jail for it."

The mafia that you speak of was already engaged in those other practices, they legitimized the liquor elements and made money off of that. Hell, ever wonder why a bar is forced to buy its product through a distributor instead of the local liquor store? Ever wonder why you had to buy a liquor license just to BRING IT TO A TABLE? You don't go through special training to get the license, you just pay. T.I.P.S. Classes are insurance, not true training.

The real world manifestations disagree with your hypothesis.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[totally bogus dude]

I can set up fake job interviews with as many people as I want. So can the feds. It's not against the law.

Are you sure? I can't find anything to confirm this but I always thought advertising or offering employment when you actually have no intention to employ anyone was at least a civil offence, if not actually criminal.

On the other hand, I think I've seen pranks and the like that involved fake job interviews, so it may well be perfectly legal. I don't think it should be though. At the very least advertising a non-existent job should be punishable under "false advertising" laws.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

the fact that the dealer is willing to accept the circumstances and participate in that crime in order to deal makes him a bad person.

A couple of questions:

First off, when you talk about "crime", are you meaning "illegal activity" or actual criminal (as compared to civil) offenses? Because if it's the former, people who violate copyright by downloading music and movies without the consent of the owner would, by your definition, be "bad people."

Even if it's the latter, someone who runs a stop light in the middle of the night when there are are no cars around must, necessarily, be a bad person. They're apparently also bad even if the stop light is broken and is never going to turn green--that is, unless the local laws have a waiver for that particular instance.

Someone who is starving, can't find work, and can't (for whatever reason) get welfare is apparently also bad if they steal food to survive.

In all of these cases, the actor is "willing to accept the circumstances and participate in that crime."

The problem (and sole reason that I bring this up) is that whether or not someone or something is "good" or "bad" is almost always a subjective issue. It's based on morals. It's dangerous to start considering anyone who chooses to break a law to be a "bad person."

Maybe it was just poorly worded, because later on, you imply that people aren't inherently bad because they choose to deal drugs, but that really just makes me confused, because you seem to be contradicting yourself.

the fact that the dealer is willing to accept the circumstances and participate in that crime in order to deal makes him a bad person.

and

people are not inherently bad because they choose to deal drugs

are mutually exclusive statements, frighteningly close to doublethink.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[lymond01]

While an interesting story, I hope you don't believe that anyone put away for dealing illegal drugs is a "bad" person.

I disagree. A drug dealer is sometimes simply capitalizing on another person's addiction. They are as "evil" as any other greedy person who keeps another person down for a profit. Not always the case, but I would say the majority.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[LingNoi]

For creating the program, not being part of the dos attack. There's a big difference between what people do with your program and if you made the program.

Again, has he been arrested, has he ever done any jail time? No.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[mikesd81]

How many of those cases actually were sent to jail? Just because they moved the sign does NOT move the boundary. That's grounds for dismissal.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Neoprofin]

You mean like when they send letters to bail jumpers about having won a free boat if they just come pick it up?

Wont's someone please think of the criminals?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[hurfy]

"The drugs used by three perps affected nobody but themselves..."

Exactly right.

The bad driving/DUI, theft and robbery on the other hand did. Coincidentally they are illegal in their own right even if we don't punish people enough for them :(

Not to mention in 2 of the 3 you don't even say they were on drugs, only that they wanted money. Not sure how you figure they wouldn't do the same for cigarettes, booze, food, or a new leather coat. They work for those and rob people for drug money i suppose .....

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Darundal]

How is it entrapment? Entrapment is when someone is coaxed into doing something illegal that they wouldn't have done otherwise by law enforcement officers. What illegal thing are they compelling him to do? How is getting the guy to come here even borderline entrapment?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

so you dont have a problem with crackheads breaking into cars and homes to steal money for drugs ? or driving high on meth and running over innocent bystanders ? or going on murderous rampages high on coke ?

Being "under the influence of drugs" is a state.
Committing a crime is an action.

The crime is that of stealing, not of being in an altered state.
If you stole while you were sober, are you not still a criminal? So then, how is stealing while you are drunk/high/etc any different?

Same exact deal with "hate crimes"... The motivation for a crime should not affect the punishment (thanks South Park) -- all that does is promote the idea that were are different, instead of holding everyone accountable to the same standard. ...and for anyone who wants to point out that murder for self defense would then be treated the same as premeditated murder: that is not the case, since murder for self defense is not murder with a different motivation -- rather its simply a different crime (manslaughter or something)

Another relevant South Park quote:
Miss Stevenson: I am a perfectly good person, but when I drink, the alcohol makes me say and do things I wouldn't normally do.
Police Sergeant: Well, that explains it.
Policeman #1: Do we still press charges?
Police Sergeant: Who are we gonna convict? Johnny Walker?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Neoprofin]

Good lord you're right! My wife told me she was going to see a friend when she was actually planning my surprise birthday party! If she lied abut that how do I know what other lies that wench has told, after all trust and honesty are the cornerstones of a good relationship.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Maverynthia]

Sounds like entrapment to me. I think this should be illegal.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[geekoid]

"...bad person."

No it doesn't. It makes him someone who is breaking a law.

"the Mafia didn't cease to exist when Prohibition ended and they couldn't run their speakeasys anymore;"
They became legitimate alcohol business men.
They don't care about breaking the law, they care about making money.

"they just stepped up their extortion, money laundering, etc. to compensate."

There is no evidence of this that I am aware of, do you ahve a cite or are you saying this becasue it feels 'right'*

"but the illegality of dealing drugs attracts bad people to it."
No, the money does.

*I wrote a a paper on prohibition. Won an award and had some professors ask me about my facts and research, they were impressed.
See, it turns out that the papers lost a lot of money in advertising due to prohibition. With a little research into what the papers were putting on the front page, you will notice a couple of things: All violent crime was assumed to be mob related, regardless of the evidence.
The fact that crime was down was overlooked or buried.

All that stopped when prohibition was lifted and the papers stopped putting the mob on the cover.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[rdnetto]

FYI, if you dont know the crime was commited on Valve computers, meaning the original crime was performed in the USA.

Wait, do you mean that he hacked into their computers and copied it off, or that he actually walked up to the computer and copied it on to a USB, etc.?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[tylerni7]

I don't have any more of a problem with crack-heads breaking into cars and homes, or meth-heads driving into people, or coke-heads going on murderous rampage than I do if they weren't drug users.

Do you think anything that makes crime more likely shouldn't be allowed? If people of a specific ethnic background are convicted of crimes more often, does that mean we should arrest them all?
If there was a gene that made people more likely to steal things, or makes them more violent and therefore more likely to commit assault, should we arrest them all?
If people that do drugs are convicted of crimes more often, does that mean we should arrest them all?

It seems to me we should arrest anyone who breaks into cars or homes, runs over people in a car, or goes on murderous rampages, not just people who might be slightly more predisposed to do so.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, wouldn't the crime scene be his house, not the server park?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[ip_fired]

It is not borderline entrapment.

Entrapment in this sense is defined as: a defense that claims the defendant would not have broken the law if not tricked into doing it by law enforcement officials

This guy had *already broken the law*, he did not break any laws by going to a fake job interview. He just wasn't very smart.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong. German authorities could have captured the guy just as well. How do I know this? Because they did capture him. It was actually pretty easy, once someone actually told them about his crime.

Of course, that got him tried in Germany, because Germany doesn't extradite its own citizens to the US. I suppose, the FBI wanted to get a trial in an American court.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[mrchaotica]

I think it's safe to assume that everyone who wants to do drugs in our society is already doing them.

I disagree. I think there is a group of people who are deterred by the illegality of the drugs, but who might try them if they were legal (especially the less-harmful ones). Heck, even I might have been inclined to try LSD, if it were legal.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Cleaaaaaarly you haven't watched Minority Report...

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

In the case of Prince Georges County, MD versus Charles County, MD, the politics in question has a lot to do with affluence. There are significant portions of PG that most sane people tend to avoid. There are FAR fewer of those sorts of areas in Charles, and those that do exist are primarily meth heads, as opposed to crack or coke.

And while I realize that this is going to come across as me being racist - there's also identity politics at work, in particular self-identification as 'victims' on the part of the -heavily- African American population in PG. Don't take my word for it, tho - I only grew up in northern Charles.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[paitre]

Having grown up in Charles, I can pretty much guarantee we're talking Charles and Prince Georges Counties, MD in the above example.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Irish_Samurai]

My brother wasn't in an accident (and lost two months of work) caused by a guy driving high on weed.

The driving while intoxicated has nothing to do with the intoxicating element. This crime is illegal regardless of mind altering source.

My neighbor didn't have his car stereo stolen by a guy getting money for smack.

Unless you KNOW FOR A FACT the perpetrator WAS stealing explicitly for smack, then this argument has no value. You can steal for many other reasons. One of them being CASH.

One of my friends wasn't held up at knife point by a guy obviously seeking a fix of something.

The SOMETHING could have been Money, or THRILL (it does happen), or proof of loyalty to a gang.

The accident, theft, and hold up are all products of their imaginations.

They are all the products of IGNORANCE. If you could function in society and still "get your fix", like alcoholics most often do, then these crimes would be categorized as they should be - the results of SPECIFIC ACTIONS. Ignorant people do Ignorant shit to no end.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Toll_Free]

What is the difference?

If the computer storing the game bits of code is based in the US, and he attacks it (hacks it), then he committed a crime under US law.

Don't tell me you actually think that people doing malicious hacking shouldn't be appropriately dealt with by the country whose laws they fucked over by hacking.... I mean, all you'd have to do is go to international waters and you could do all you wanted, to any country you wanted, to any server you wanted, and there would be no retribution.

Unless you where going for the point of if he copied it by USB method, he is guilty of criminal trespass as well as computer trespass.

--Toll_Free

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Rakishi]

Entrapment is when the authorities cause you to commit a crime (that you wouldn't otherwise) which is not the case here since the crime was already committed.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Toll_Free]

The 5th amendment is something the person being questioned has to invoke.

You honestly think that asking someone if they did it is entrapment?

--Toll_Free

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

I can set up fake job interviews with as many people as I want. So can the feds. It's not against the law.

Are you sure?

Of course I'm not sure, I'm an AC posting the slashdot for crying out loud!

I can't find anything to confirm this but I always thought advertising or offering employment when you actually have no intention to employ anyone was at least a civil offence, if not actually criminal.

I had never heard of that, but it's not really a field into which I've done a lot of research. I'm sure, however, that there's plenty of wiggle room in the statute to argue your way out of it. I can't see it being illegal unless your seriously mislead someone (i.e. tell them they've got the job, when in fact there is no job, get them to move across country, get them to quit their current job, etc). My thinking was that it's not illegal to set up a meeting with someone under false pretenses. I can ask you over to my house to watch LotR on my new HD setup, when in fact I'm inviting you over for a surprise birthday party. Or an intervention to help you deal with some pressing personal issue.

On the other hand, I think I've seen pranks and the like that involved fake job interviews, so it may well be perfectly legal. I don't think it should be though. At the very least advertising a non-existent job should be punishable under "false advertising" laws.

False advertising may apply. Or may not. I could always claim it was performance art, and thus protected speech. But even if it is false advertising, keep in mind:

1) When was the last time ANY of the shady assholes who dominate our economic landscape were called out in a court of law on their factually questionable advertising AND LOST?

2) There's always a loophole for law enforcement officials acting in an official capacity. After all, I can't do 95mph in a school zone, but a police officer with flashing lights can.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Toll_Free]

That's for the judge to take into account, not the police.

And that's for the judge to take into account during sentencing, not during the guilt phase of a trial.

--Toll_Free

Re:shouldn't be legal

[ceoyoyo]

The UK doesn't have any laws against you watching violent porn outside the country.

Now, if you ripped off a major UK company you might want to think twice about going there.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Neoprofin]

Of course, because FARC, Pablo Escobar, and the Taliban are all swell guys who are just trying to make an honest buck if only we weren't so hard on them.

Granted, drugs are in an unfortunate association with people who lust for money and power and would find other ways to do so without them, but pretending that that drug trade doesn't harm anybody is outrageous. Would legalizing stop it? The British more or legalized use of Opium by force and it didn't stop a single problem that existed when it was illegal. Looking at European countries that never had these problems to begin with as the success of legalization is a bitch far fetched.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Dang, they offered you a boat? All I'm getting tomorrow is a free pair of shoes!

Re:shouldn't be legal

[ceoyoyo]

Suppose I broke into your home and stole everything of value. The damage is already done, the government should just let me go, right?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

It's never a good thing to compare theft to murder as a way to refute an argument against theft, sarcasm aside. Just make your argument and don't draw a parallel that's sure to provoke criticism and draw attention away from the problem presented. Theft is not murder and vice versa. Theft is still wrong, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Other than that, I agree.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Toll_Free]

You started out telling that as a story.

And closed it as you where part of the assinine plot.

So, which is it? Stupid or an asshole?

Moving your city limits signs is a felony, by the way, if your doing it to get people arrested.

--Toll_Free

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Neoprofin]

If the crime would have been committed either way i don't see how their dishonesty makes even the slightest amount of difference to someone who isn't trying to play the system. It's not like moving the sign caused something to be illegal that wasn't already, all it did was make enforcement stronger.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Toll_Free]

Sure they did.

Except crack was called freebasing. Ask Ricky Prior about basing coke.

And meth was called Marching Powder, Anti-Depressants and asthma medicine.

So, parent is right.

--Toll_Free

Re:shouldn't be legal

[maxume]

What if he gets pregnant in prison?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Toll_Free]

You are exactly right.

My X wife thought marijuana was the SCOURGE of the world, because of her parents and DARE.

Then she realized she married someone that dallied in Marijuana use (medically and socially at times) and was FLOORED.

She almost divorced me over it, then realized, it didn't change the person she married, nor was it as bad as she thought.

Then she turned her angst towards DARE and her parents for lying ot her for so long.

BUT, the finality is this: She didn't have a problem with me using Marijuana medically, since in my state it is LEGAL. Her parents did, but they are idiots. She had a problem with ANYONE that did it that it wasn't medically excused because it IS ILLEGAL.

So yeah, some people are turned off enough just by the legality of it, and not the physical substance itself.

--Toll_Free

Re:shouldn't be legal

[p0tat03]

Especially if the company you ripped off invited you there. Seriously.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[prisoner-of-enigma]

At the very least advertising a non-existent job should be punishable under "false advertising" laws.

False advertising laws are in place to protect consumers from abuse. Advertising a job interview is not the same as advertising a product. It's perfectly legal for me to invite as many people as I want to my office for an interview -- and no job need exist for me to do that. I can interview them all, get all their resumes, and never follow up with a single one of them. It's not illegal, nor should it be. After all, if it were illegal, why would it be illegal? Have I deprived anyone of life, liberty, or property? I have not. If people came and wasted their time, they did so voluntarily.

You need to get out of this mindset that something "ought to be illegal" just because you don't like it.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Toll_Free]

You don't know what your talking about.

In Ca, to sell alcohol, you have to have a certificate.

The establishment needs to have a liquor license, but that doesn't mean shit to the people actually selling the alcohol.

Why do they go through distributors? Because so do the liquor stores. WHY THE FUCK would a restaurant / bar purchase their liquor at retail price, instead of at wholesale.

Next time you'd like to make a point, at least have a valid one. Not a bunch of half baked spew that does NOBODY any good.

Yes, getting a liquor license is a good thing. LOTS of people are turned down here applying for a license. Background checks are the norm, as well as a couple other checks.

So, again. Next time you unfold your keyboard to type, please, PLEASE, know at least SOMETHING of what your typing.

--Toll_Free
(Roommate owns a bar, so I asked him before I started this tirade).

Re:shouldn't be legal

[jackbird]

Hell, ever wonder why a bar is forced to buy its product through a distributor instead of the local liquor store?

Because retailers usually buy products wholesale rather than from other retailers?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[compro01]

What? Are millions of people going download and compile the code (did it even include the graphical resources and whatnot?) rather than buy it?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a reason that "darwin" was one of the tags for this. If you're dumb enough to get tricked to visit Iran, then you deserve it....

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Toll_Free]

"With a little research into what the papers were putting on the front page, you will notice a couple of things: All violent crime was assumed to be mob related, regardless of the evidence.
The fact that crime was down was overlooked or buried."

Gee, exactly how the Obamanation was elected.

--Toll_Free

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Toll_Free]

While an interesting story, I hope you don't believe that anyone put away for dealing illegal drugs is a "bad" person.

I disagree. A drug dealer is sometimes simply capitalizing on another person's addiction. They are as "evil" as any other greedy person who keeps another person down for a profit. Not always the case, but I would say the majority.

Like the tobacco companies and liquor companies, right?

--Toll_Free

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

However, I'm sure other tax payers, such as corporations that own source code, would lobby to keep it.

Waitaminute. It's not being a taxpayer that gives someone a stake in the government - it's being a citizen, and having a vote. That means that a lifelong welfare recipient and a survivalist hermit, neither of whom pay a dollar of tax in their lives, have a representative in Washington who is supposed to look out for their interests and listen to their concerns. A corporation, regardless of how much tax it pays, is not supposed to have such representation.

Sorry for jumping on you here, but I think that the way your post is expressed - implying that a corporate taxpayer deserves representation - is a dangerous subversion of democracy.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[TubeSteak]

Any time the police arrests a criminal, it is by definition after the event. Sometimes the damage can be undone, as in theft. Sometimes it cannot, as in murder. We still want criminals punished to deter others.

Conspiracy to commit murder (for example) is a crime, but the actual damage has not yet been done.

so "it is" not always "by definition after the event".

Re:shouldn't be legal

[jcr]

Where are the studies saying it didn't.

Pick up a history book sometime. You might learn something.

-jcr

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Toll_Free]

That's grounds for a class action law suit, as well as to have the people doing it brought up on additional charges.

I like how the person in the story started out telling it as a story he heard, and closed it with how many people he had put away.

Funny, how when the person is allowed to ramble, they end up snitching on themselves.

--Toll_Free

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Irish_Samurai]

Actually, I do know what I'm talking about. 15 years in the industry gives you that.

I'm not talking about an establishment's license, I'm talking about a servers license. It's complete bullshit.

And as far as liquor stores going through a distributor, they do. Yet, it is ILLEGAL for a bar to go to the local liquor store to get a bottle of something they ran out of. You think your distro guy is going to get it to you in 20 minutes?

Do you know what your talking about?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[LingNoi]

No you should be charged, but telling someone my home door is open and they stealing my stuff? Why should you be charged with anything?

I suggest you read the article. He didn't steal the source code, he told people on irc who figured out how to get in.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem fairly disconnected from reality to think that this is some broad sweeping, and accurate, rule of how drug dealing works.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it matter if Slashdot were hosted and run within Iran's borders?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Irish_Samurai]

But why is there a legal blockade on a local bar setting up a purchasing agreement with the local liquor store?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[qbzzt]

Sorry for jumping on you here, but I think that the way your post is expressed - implying that a corporate taxpayer deserves representation - is a dangerous subversion of democracy.

It's a dangerous subversion of democracy, but it's also the real situation in the US(1). The CEO of Chrysler has as much voting power of a single welfare recipient. To whom do you think elected officials listen?

Besides, while corporations don't have votes, they do have employees. I'd be reluctant to vote for a candidate whose policies will hurt IBM. When your employer suffers, you usually suffer too.

(1) Arguably, it's also the system working as designed. Many of thhe founding fathers were scared of democracy, and much preferred an aristocratic republic on the Roman model.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Archangel Michael]

What if he gets pregnant in prison?

Now that would be interesting!

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't want to be prosecuted for posting an offensive comment on slashdot when visiting Iran even if I wasn't tricked into going there.

I think the deception involved in getting the criminal into U.S. jurisdiction is secondary to the problem of prosecuting someone for an act that wasn't considered wrong when and where that act was committed.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[timeOday]

Without even reading the article (ahem), I'm sure the supposed job interview was not with valve. (I can't see why it would be, and it's very easy to see why it wouldn't be).

Re:shouldn't be legal

[glitch23]

Because fraud is illegal. Con games in order to deprive someone of something are illegal. The government should never partake of otherwise illegal means in order to "catch" anyone.

So it shouldn't be legal for the gov't (city or state cop) to exceed the speed limit in order to catch a criminal flying down the highway at 100mph? Or to setup a drug bust using real drugs that stupid criminals buy off them? As long as it isn't entrapment and they respect civil rights there is no harm done.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[totally bogus dude]

Fair enough, clearly there's enough of a gray area that it'd be very difficult to successful prosecute even intentionally malicious behaviour of this sort.

I'm still fairly sure I've seen something along these lines before, but it may have simply been a rule for a job site or something like that.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[LingNoi]

He DIDN'T commit the crime! RTFA!!!

He told others that he got into valve, said others figured out how he did it and stole the code.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[ceoyoyo]

I suggest you read the article, a little more carefully. He broke into Valve's network, but he claims he didn't actually steal the source, he just bragged about what he did, including details, on IRC and happened to be overheard.

Since you like analogies, try this one:

I figure out that the lock on your back door is crappy so I break it and sneak in. I keep sneaking in for six months, because I like watching you and your wife have sex. I brag about the whole thing to a bunch of my friends, who also start sneaking into your house (I told them how) and they film you having sex with your wife and release it on the Internet.

Damage is done, I should get off, right?

(Note to young slashdotters - replace "having sex with your wife" to something suitably embarrassing that you wouldn't want plastered all over the Internet. Use your imagination.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[LingNoi]

RTFA, he didn't go, FBI and valve failed..

He also didn't steal the source code, he boasted on IRC and others listening in figured out what he did and got in.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[qbzzt]

If you want to split hairs the crime of "conspiracy to commit a crime" has already happened, but it does not, by itself, cause any damage.

That's the reason it's a separate crime ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime) ) - precisely because the planned crime, the one that would have hurt somebody, did not occur yet.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

"Back in the day" != the late 70's and 80's
Amphetamine != methamphetamine

Re:shouldn't be legal

[timeOday]

Because it bypasses protections established by extradition treaties (or lack thereof). How would you like to be tricked into visiting Iran, and then be prosecuted for posting some offensive comment on slashdot?

By the way, this does happen. 2/3rds of the time you hear about some American "kidnapped" by Iran, it turns out there's some legal basis for it - in Iran, of course. (e.g. "Not without my daughter" and Haleh Esfandiari. Does that mean Iran is right? Nah, it means be careful where you go.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[compro01]

What damage exactly?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[khallow]

I disagree: if all drugs were legal, the people currently selling them would move onto some other lucrative, illegal activity.

Like what? My take is that legalizing drug dealing would cut out the majority of illegal activity of any sort. Sure the bad people might move on to low return activities, say steal TVs or whatever, but a number of them are going to move into the legal economy simply because that now pays better. There are lucrative markets like people smuggling that have similar returns, but most bad people won't be able to get in on that action. Further, the other side of the coin, the customers have less incentive to perform illegal activities. Currently, they routinely are at risk of arrest due to their drug use. It means that commiting further crimes is not adding to their risk as much as it would be for fully law abiding citizen. But in a country where drug use is legalized, the tradeoffs are much more in favor of legal activity.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[LingNoi]

So go after the real criminals!!! Why are they wasting their time with this guy who is obviously not malicious in nature.

He had access for 6 months but didn't do anything with it suggests he's not responsible.

You're playing the stupid game of shoot the messenger.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, that's where the Nigerians got there inspiration.

Now you see what will happen when you want to trick criminals...

Re:shouldn't be legal

[LingNoi]

The costs of having to spend more time developing half-life 2 obviously.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[AK Marc]

So it shouldn't be legal for the gov't (city or state cop) to exceed the speed limit in order to catch a criminal flying down the highway at 100mph?

Personally, I think that's true. They should shoot out the tires, and if they can't do that, shoot out the driver. To go 120 mph to catch up to someone going 80 in a 70 to give them a ticket is absurd. If it's safe for them to go that fast, how can it be unsafe for the person only going 10 over the limit?

Or to setup a drug bust using real drugs that stupid criminals buy off them?

Which part should I object to, the entrapment or the using real drugs when they went and bothered to make it illegal to sell flour, or should I object to the fact that selling flour is illegal if the person believes it to be drugs?

As long as it isn't entrapment and they respect civil rights there is no harm done.

I assert that fraud in enforcement of the law is a violation of civil rights. Maybe not the protected civil rights observed in the US, but I believe it to be a right none the less.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[rts008]

You sure about that?

*hint* methamphetamine was first synthesized in Germany in the late 1800's, and cocaine has been in use probably longer, as it was a fovorite pastime of 'Sherlock Holmes'.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Up, up in the air.....
In my beautiful
My beautiful
MOTORBOOOOOAT

Re:shouldn't be legal

[alzoron]

Entrapment is tricking someone into committing a crime. This is more like when the police send out raffle prize announcements to everyone with outstanding warrants and arresting them when they show up.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Artraze]

> Because fraud is illegal. Con games in order to deprive someone of something are illegal.

Fraud, like everything else, isn't _inherently_ illegal; what makes it illegal is the damage it does to it's victim. If you cannot prove damage, then there's no crime. (This is why 'humorous' fraud, like on those hidden camera shows is legal). When an officer of the court tricks you into doing something, whether it's giving up your location, confessing (Prisoner's Dilemma), or the like, there is no inherit damage. The 'fraud' does absolutely nothing but get you to give up information. If that _information_ is damaging, that's an entirely separate issue, as it would be just as damaging had it be obtained in any other way.

Now, that's just criminal fraud. It is interesting to note that civil fraud is basically defined as lying. As is common with civil law, the definition is considerably more vague because it's not meant to be as black and white as criminal law (due to the way the courts work). So it is certainly the case the tricks like these are cases of civil fraud. However, successful cases against law enforcement are few and far between.

> If you can't get them playing within the rules, let them go.

But what rules are they violating? Tricks aren't criminal; civilians can do them if they want and frequently do. And while they may violate the civil statue, that's so vague there's no real line to draw. Sure, maybe telling someone that someone confessed is pretty obviously a lie, but what about a plain clothes police officer? If they anticipate what bank a robber will hit next, are they obligated to post a warning that the cops are there?

In this case (of the story), is this breaking the 'rules'? What if Valve were legitimately going to give this guy a job? Sure, they're expecting him to get sent to prison, but that doesn't mean the offer is necessarily fake. What if Valve was feeling vigilante and decided to hire the guy, then report him to the FBI the next week? Hell, what if they hired him _without_ intending to turn him over, but the FBI discovered him on their own? Or maybe a disgruntled employee reported him?

All those situations end up in the same place: the guy's arrested by the FBI. Which cases should be illegal? Why does it even matter? That's why police can use tricks to get people. There's nothing to say what's good and what's bad except a jury in a civil suit. And because we, as a society, prefer not to let criminals roam freely, such cases usually fail.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[DaFallus]

No undercover police in your universe?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[rabbit994]

Drug Dealing is illegal under Maryland law. Drug Dealers were not "tricked" into anything they wouldn't have normally done illegally. I would have only disagreed with their tactics if drug dealing was legal in Prince George's County and Charles County tricked the dealers into believing they were Prince George County when they weren't.

In article case, the hacker knew he had committed the crime in question and entered United States willingly.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you're a dumbass. As long as he ends up with a job, they are fine.

You get paid in prison for doing stuff...like 12 cents an hour.

Sounds fair to me.

STFU

Re:shouldn't be legal

[ceoyoyo]

Again, read the article. Valve went after him, keeping the FBI in the loop while they were doing it. He's the fish they caught. So far.

Note that the whole investigation and job offer thing is all long in the past anyway, contrary to what the summary implies. The recent news is that US prosecutors added the guy to an indictment for writing and distributing the Agobot worm.

I'm not playing any game. Neither is the FBI or Valve. The guy is not the messenger. He broke into a system, did not tell the owners or authorities about it (no messenger), instead gave out the details privately to people who used them in an act of industrial espionage. He also wrote and released a worm that has thousands of variants and is known as the "kitchen sink" of malware.

You know that if you find the key to someone's house, give it to a criminal and the criminal breaks into the house and kills someone, you're guilty of murder in many countries, including the US, right?

And you DID read the article, didn't you? Pretty ballsy to "suggest I read it."

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't go to Iran for a million dollars.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[lazynomer]

Uh, if the crime was commited on US soil, it is the jurisdiction of where the crime was comitted. The FBI had to resort to such tactics because for whatever reason the German Authorities could not capture this person.

But as the GP mentioned (source Wired), he was sentenced by a German court. (I presume he appeared in court.)

IMO it does not matter where you say the crime was committed -- not according to German law. If German law defines an action as a crime, a German citizen can be held accountable by German jurisdiction no matter where on Earth he committed it (and no matter if it's a crime according to foreign law).

And since there has been talk about extradition: The German constitution does not allow a German citizen to be extradited except to a EU country or an international court of justice.

IANAL; however, if the parent is informative, then I'm an idiot. A plausible possibility, but I'd appreciate an explanation. ;-) (And sorry, I have no source in English, just German Wikipedia.)

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Free the Cowards]

Funny how physical location doesn't matter on the internet right up until a "hacker" does something "heroic", and then suddenly it's all "nyah nyah, jurisdiction".

He committed a crime against a US entity. He was then foolish enough to put himself within US law enforcement. He's now suffering the consequences of his crime and his stupidity.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

rtfa, it was...

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it bypasses protections established by extradition treaties (or lack thereof). How would you like to be tricked into visiting Iran, and then be prosecuted for posting some offensive comment on slashdot?

Iran is a brutal theocracy, and has been for more than 25 years. The human rights abuses of the Islamic Republic of Iran are well-known and have been well-documented by groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

If you have the slightest qualm for having done something unIslamic, you really, really shouldn't go to Iran. Or speaking out against the regime. Even taking a picture can get you tortured & killed in Iran: http://www.amnesty.ca/take_action/actions/canada_iran_jahanbegloo.php

Bottom line: there are very, very nasty places in the world, and you shouldn't go there. Strangely enough, for all the complaints about Dubya, Guantanamo et al, most of the far worse places get a free ride in the press.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Free the Cowards]

Even if it were illegal, the rules for dealing with wanted criminals are different than the rules for common citizens. For one thing, the police are allowed to arrest and lock up wanted criminals with no further provocation.

There's always the classic police scam where they mail a prize notice ("You have won a new boat!") to suspects' last known address. Then they arrest everyone who comes through the front door. Nabs a lot of criminals. This was even parodied on The Simpsons, but has a basis in reality.

It would be illegal, or at the very least a tort, to do this sort of thing to a normal citizen. But if there's a warrant out for your arrest, you're supposed to go to jail. If you don't turn yourself in then you are essentially fair game for the police \.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a wonderful reply full of dead-wrong assumptions.

Keep assuming things and making more inane statements. I'm sure you'll win us all over.

Poor, poor game companies? What do you want to happen - the government to step in and controlling more of what we do? Let the market decide.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Free the Cowards]

The theory is that the threat of eventual punishment deters crime. You may disagree with this theory, but essentially all of modern law enforcement is built on it. Considering the costs just for prison, the cost of catching and imprisoning someone almost always far outweighs the cost of the actual crime committed. But we still believe it to be a worthwhile thing to do.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to get out of this mindset that something "ought to be illegal" just because you don't like it.

But that's the standard Congress uses!

/rimshot

Re:shouldn't be legal

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

Posting fake job advertisement or resume solicitation is a common tactic nowadays.

If I am the boss and the people are not acting right, what I will do is post a resume solicitation and setup interviews, even though I do not have openings. People will soon hear, see and smell a large incoming of resumes and "prospective employees" coming in and out for interview and scared to death. This is a very good trick to increase productivity.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[rmdashrf]

So by your reasoning, you should be able to be imprisoned by the chinese government if you watch (by chinese government deemed) illegal content on a website that's hosted on a server in China. Even though the content of the website is perfectly legal in the country where you are browsing in? No? Didn't think so... This type of entrapment is a slippery slope.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[PincusJr]

Dude - He got owned by the FBI. The way I see it, is that the FBI are the hackers. They successfully tricked another hacker, therefore FBI > the guy.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Except if its Precrime!

Re:shouldn't be legal

[roguetrick]

Yep, the only reason the police tell someone their 5th amendment rights is to make sure they don't confess to things they don't have to due to fear of authority reprisal. If you don't know the individual is police, there is no possible way you think they'll put you in jail for not telling them something.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[LingNoi]

instead gave out the details privately to people who used them in an act of industrial espionage

Hardly, he boasted that he got into valve, people listening on the channel knew he got in so figured out how he did it. That's not the same as handing over the username and passwords.

It's like a security analyst saying there is a buffer overflow in the windows xp sp3 netcode, you don't know where but you know it exists.

The recent news is that US prosecutors added the guy to an indictment for writing and distributing the Agobot worm.

and it's a dangerous path you're going down, think about that next time you release anything open source, you could end up in prison too.

I think it's ridiculous that he's being charged when he only wrote the program. He's not involved in using it.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

"That just happened five minutes ago"

Re:shouldn't be legal

[LingNoi]

I don't disagree, however this guy did nothing wrong. If you read the article he didn't steal the source code.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[DirePickle]

"We" could very easily mean "We [the county in which I live] put them away," the same as "we [the football team of the city in which I live/school to which I go] won the game."

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget the boat, I thought I was getting cake.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So it shouldn't be legal for the gov't (city or state cop) to exceed the speed limit in order to catch a criminal flying down the highway at 100mph?

Personally, I think that's true. They should shoot out the tires, and if they can't do that, shoot out the driver. To go 120 mph to catch up to someone going 80 in a 70 to give them a ticket is absurd. If it's safe for them to go that fast, how can it be unsafe for the person only going 10 over the limit?

(a) The police car is running sirens and lights warning other drivers that they need to take special care because the vehicle is exceeding the normal limits. All too frequently that is NOT the case, which is despicable and people frequently are killed because of it.
(b) The driver of the vehicle is well trained (and current) in high speed defensive driving.

As long as those two requirements are satisfied, then I believe it is valid for police and others with legitimate reason to speed. Certainly shooting at the tires and the driver brings significant risks which can endanger other people present. Also, shooting the driver should almost never be an option - extra-judicial killings are a huge opportunity for civil rights violations.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[roguetrick]

Semantics!

The event could be interpreted as being the development of a plan to break the law, since that was why charges were brought. Even still, the worst damage may not have been done in all cases.

Still, its not a subject worth arguing over.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[hcgpragt]

I immediately belief that the region is no picnic!
But when you let your morals slip the police just turns into another gang. Its a sliding scale I think.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[jesterzog]

After all, if it were illegal, why would it be illegal? Have I deprived anyone of life, liberty, or property? I have not. If people came and wasted their time, they did so voluntarily.

It's a blurry line as far as I'm concerned. If a company advertises a job and makes it appear as if they want to employ someone, invites people for interviews, and if those people fly half way around the world to attend the interviews (possibly at their own expense), I expect they'd be quite annoyed to find out the advertiser was just joking and never had any intention to employ anyone. If they couldn't find anyone suitable for the job then fair enough, but if they never actually intended to hire anyone and don't have a position to fill, it seems to me to be bordering on fraud. (I'm not a lawyer though, etc etc). Maybe it's legal in some places, and probably not in others.

I've known at least a couple of people who've travelled a long way internationally to get to interviews for academic posts. It was implied they had a fair chance of actually getting the job if they could show they were qualified, but nobody even bothered to turn up to the seminars they were required to give as part of the interview process. The department heads already knew exactly who they wanted from their existing internal staff, and never had any intention of hiring anyone else. They'd only been invited to satisfy policy requirements of advertising jobs externally, to make it look as if there was actually fair competition for the job. Legal action against this sort of thing usually isn't worth it, especially if you're trying to take it against someone in another country.

I don't know how it works in the Valve case. The article says they'd offered to pay travel expenses, and maybe the FBI has special permission from the US government (or maybe court orders) to use these kinds of tactics to get people they want within US jurisdiction.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Achromatic1978]

Given that he's already been arrested and charged and faced a trial in Germany, if nothing else, I fail to see how this isn't double jeopardy.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[compro01]

If you think they actually had the game finished when he took the code and didn't merely use his attack as a plausible excuse to delay the release, I've got a bridge you might like.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Shark]

If I had mod points, I'd mod you up.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[magarity]

Wasting money protecting source code after the event
 
In the US practically all law enforcement is after the event. Even if the police are standing right there, the criminals actually have to actually start doing whatever or seriously look like they're about to. There's almost no proactive arrests. Do you really want the FBI/cops to arrest people BEFORE they commit crimes? There was a silly Tom Cruise movie with this premise that you might find mildly amusing, but not for normal theft and whatnot crimes. That's why it's such a huge deal to make an exception for people plotting terrorism to be proactively arrested/detained. It isn't the normal course of things.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[firmamentalfalcon]

but the illegality of dealing drugs attracts bad people to it.

Not illegality. It's profitability. If drug dealers can have a legal job with same pay, they most likely would take it.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Zencyde]

One might argue that he committed the crime on his home soil and that the various routers relayed the messages he sent. So... it's kind of like firing a bullet across a border and killing someone. You committed the act where you stood, and physics did the rest. He technically committed the crime on his home turf and should (and apparently was) punished accordingly.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Zencyde]

Wouldn't being tried in US courts after being tried in German courts be a form of double jeopardy? Isn't that unconstitutional? I hope someone at the FBI gets fired over this BS.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[The Grim Reefer2]

Yep, the only reason the police tell someone their 5th amendment rights is to make sure they don't confess to things they don't have to due to fear of authority reprisal. If you don't know the individual is police, there is no possible way you think they'll put you in jail for not telling them something.

I guess you think that any evidence gathered by an undercover officer is a violation of the 5th amendment and should not be admissible either.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Toll_Free]

No, as it's legal where I live to watch that type of "content".

Your statement didn't even make much sense, but I'm trying to grasp what your saying.

What he did was / is illegal in BOTH countries. What part about that don't you get?

--Toll_Free

Re:shouldn't be legal

[the eric conspiracy]

It's a totally different story when the FBI tricks someone to enter the US and he gets charged for crimes not committed on US soil - especially when the person is from a country having a extradition treaty with the US (Germany is one of them).

The crime certainly was committed on US soil. The damages were inflicted on a US entity located in the US. End of story.

In addition the German constitution (article 16) prohibits extradition in all but the most extreme circumstances. It is highly unlikely that the US would be able to extradite in this case. For an example, Germany refused to extradite an Al-Qaida financier to Spain after rejecting a EU arrest warrant a couple of years ago.

In this case the FBI was clearly justified in working on a way to bring this criminal to justice as its mandate is to enforce US laws.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[rantingkitten]

That's crap, man. You're basically saying "The government set up rules, including local jurisdiction. They were unable to catch criminals effectively this way. They therefore cheated the rules, and won. Hooray."

Look, if the notion of local jurisdictions bothers you so much, fight to have it changed. I think the entire concept of little penny-ante dictatorships -- sorry, I mean "counties" or "townships" or what-have-you -- is asinine in the extreme. I firmly believe they benefit no one, and lead to silly situations like the one you're describing.

However, that is the system in place. If the local government and cops can't handle that, that's their problem. They're the ones who set it up, and for better or worse they're the ones who think regional control is better than centralized control. Then they're whining that the system isn't beneficial enough to them, so instead of saying it isn't working, they move some signs around to trick people?

Screw that from here til Tuesday. Either you want local jurisdiction or you don't -- but if you want everything controlled locally, and people take advantage of it the total lack of organization, too bad for you. You don't get to have it both ways. Local control or not. Moving signs around means you've admitted the system doesn't work.

I wonder how the smartasses who moved the signs would feel if I put up a bunch of "No Trespassing" signs marking my property, but cleverly moved them all twenty meters back from my real property line. Then when some dweeb walks on my property, having no signs marking it as such, I claim he's a trespasser and shoot him. Suddenly it's not so kosher, eh guys?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Toll_Free]

OK, MDMA was given to people as a mood elevator in the 70s and 80s.

MDMA is a methamphetamine derived chemical. There is (if memory serves me well enough) either 2 or 3 differences in the chain.

They also DID prescribe methamphetamine as a mood elevator, as well as a brochiodilator.

Methamphetamine was given to our troops in Viet Nam. A good friend of mine actually has a bottle of it (the empty bottle, the contents where LONG ago consumed). His argument for having it is: I'm a methamphetamine addict. I had never touched it, nor heard of it, until Viet Nam. My government gave me pretty much all I wanted then. So, they gave me the FUCKING habit. Should I ever be arrested, this is a DAMNING piece of evidence. I don't think he would do very well, but it still serves as evidence of Methamphetamine ABuse from our government in the 60s / 70s.

Matter of fact, Methamphetamine is STILL legally prescribed in the United States. It's used for SEVERE obesity as well as narcolepsy. VERY few people get it for ADD/HD as well.

Cocaine? Yup, we have that as well. Most opthamology shops set up for surgery (not your basic eyeglasses plus type place, or julios lasic clinic, but REAL eye surgeons), they get Cocaine. It's one of, if not the only anesthetic used IN the eyeball.

Coca Cola ALSO STILL uses Coca in their drink. The Coca BASE (which is cocaine, after refining) is whisked away for no apparent reason (I'd say, more than likely, for the production of legal cocaine, for eye dox, but I'm sure they don't say for security reasons) is brought to the states. Matter of fact, Coca Cola Bottling is the BIGGEST single purchaser of Coca in the world.

Care to anonymously talk about this some more? I tend to know a bit more than the average idiot about drugs, drug use, pharmacology, and the such. Growing up in one of the largest methamphetamine production towns in the world during the 80s kinda does that for ya.

--Toll_Free

Re:shouldn't be legal

[girlintraining]

At the risk of reminding you of your history, the Mafia didn't exist until the Prohibition. And naturally, like any business that has just lost its primary source of revenue, or whose market has dissolved, but still has a significant amount of capital and labor resources... It diversified. Would Microsoft disappear tomorrow if suddenly nobody ever bought Windows after tomorrow?

No. Criminal enterprise is like that... Once they step over, they know they can't go back and that's because that's how the system is designed. It's how people want it to be. Once a criminal, always a criminal. There's no way back, it's a scarlet letter. If that weren't the case, then sure -- the Mafia probably wouldn't exist today because it would have made more sense to turn away from crime and back to legitimate enterprise. But none of the participants could wash their hands of it. There's no pardon waiting for them, no way to just start over fresh, so they looked for other crime because that's the only work that was left for them.

The drug underground is no different. Once you start, there's no way back. You can't just walk away from it and back into your old life, or start a new life. It's a one way trip, because there's always someone that knows what you used to do and that person could talk. Chances are good that you've made enemies, and they aren't going to care that you quit.

You want to pass moral judgement on these people, you do that, but before you start casting stones you should ask about the morality of a system that doesn't give anyone a second chance. It's a system that creates its own problems to repetitively solve in order to justify its own relevance.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[glitch23]

Personally, I think that's true. They should shoot out the tires, and if they can't do that, shoot out the driver. To go 120 mph to catch up to someone going 80 in a 70 to give them a ticket is absurd.

Often times high-speed chases begin when the criminal is already speeding away to avoid capture. When that happens the only thing to do is to start the pursuit. You can't shoot someone who is already going 100mph and expect to be able to hit your small target (tire or head). When you are going 100mph in a 70mph (top interstate speed in parts of the U.S.) and a cop catches you I highly doubt you will only get a ticket. 20+mph over is wreckless driving so 30 over would probably mean mandatory jail time so it wouldn't just be a ticket therefore it wouldn't be absurd. Also, you won't see a cop doing 120mph to stop someone going 80 in a 70 zone because there just isn't a need for it. Even from a standstill a cop could catch the person in a few miles by simply going about 85mph. You are using extreme data to make your argument and you are failing miserably.

If it's safe for them to go that fast, how can it be unsafe for the person only going 10 over the limit?

As someone already said, cops are trained for high speed pursuits and for some reason criminals (who aren't trained) actually think they are better than the cops when they decide to flee at high speed.

Which part should I object to, the entrapment or the using real drugs when they went and bothered to make it illegal to sell flour, or should I object to the fact that selling flour is illegal if the person believes it to be drugs?

If you are caught doing something that you know is illegal but you think you can get away with, you are still guilty because of your intent. Intent is the factor in determining whether you are guilty of murder or manslaughter when you kill someone. You better be glad intent is looked at if you ever happen to kill someone (odds are slim I know but not 0). Don't try splitting hairs and saying this is akin to Minority Report but it isn't. In situations such as selling flour as drugs you are actually still performing the act. It isn't like you thought about doing it and got arrested for it. If you actually attempt to sell flour as drugs then you obviously showed intent to do an illegal act. One story I'll always remember from watching Law and Order is the ethical debate of a guy who shoots another person who is already dead. The guy doesn't know the person is already dead. Is the guy guilty of murder, manslaughter, something else, nothing? I don't recall the answer unfortunately but at the least the guy showed intent to kill because he shot the person. It doesn't matter the person was already dead.

I assert that fraud in enforcement of the law is a violation of civil rights. Maybe not the protected civil rights observed in the US, but I believe it to be a right none the less.

Ok, which civil right is violated? Does it have a name (protected or not)? The right to do something illegal but not have to worry about law enforcement doing something else illegal to arrest you? If you step outside the bounds why can't they? Too fair for you?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Toll_Free]

Actually, I do know what I'm talking about. 15 years in the industry gives you that.

I'm not talking about an establishment's license, I'm talking about a servers license. It's complete bullshit.

And as far as liquor stores going through a distributor, they do. Yet, it is ILLEGAL for a bar to go to the local liquor store to get a bottle of something they ran out of. You think your distro guy is going to get it to you in 20 minutes?

Do you know what your talking about?

15 years in the industry in what state?

Each state defines it's own liquor license laws. In Ca, the ONLY people that don't require a license are waiters / waitresses. You have to have a certificate to sell fucking alcohol at 7-11 (you did when I worked there fresh outta high school).

A liquor store (see, that entire STORE thing means they pretty much are catering to the END Luser) is designed to sell to the people consuming it. Not to someone doling it out to others. Should you get a bottle of liquor that's tainted somehow, now there is no verifiable chain.... It could be ANYONES guess as to how it was tainted (I know, VERY uncommon, but it could happen).

But, bitching about a retail establishment not being able to purchase from another retail establishment a controlled substance is kind of... Well.

Hey, ya know what? Pharmacies can't do that, either. Guess it's a controlled substance issue, huh?

Come to think of it, neither can CIG companies.

Oh yeah, those pesky tax laws. GUESS MAYBE THAT'S WHY A RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT CAN'T SELL TO ANOTHER... Their has to be a tax stream as well as a way to ensure taxes are paid.

Do you think it's ok for a store to sell a bottle of alcohol and collect TAX on it, then the restaurant / bar NOT pay any taxes on the people they are selling it to (ie, not charge their end users tax), or is it better to just not pay tax at all? Or have the liquor stores (remember, they are not wholesalers, just retailers, so they don't KNOW tax law) decide who to tax and who not to tax?

Again, 15 years in the industry, and you don't know it's set up just as a taxable income base? And you can't figure out why the feds have ensured that you can't beat them?????

15 WHOLE years?

--Toll_Free

Re:shouldn't be legal

[SpecBear]

This case isn't entrapment. The FBI didn't tempt the accused to commit a crime. The crime had already been committed. They just tried to get him into their jurisdiction. They failed.

Regarding your example: I don't know about "should", but you very well could. If viewing the content is violation of Chinese law, then I would strongly advise you to decline any job offers from China. Yes, it's silly, but not because of the jurisdictional issues. It's the state of government censorship in China that's silly.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

What? So murderers shouldn't be charged because the victim is already dead?
 
Think before you type.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

People who deal drugs are bad people. Apologize for someone else please.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

No it doesn't. Extradition treaties provide no protections, they are mutual agreements between governments on how to fill out the forms to transfer accused criminals between countries if the accused refuses to leave.
 
This was a much more time and cost effective method to get the criminal to voluntarily come to the prosecuting jurisdiction. If anything german is happy they didn't have to spend their money to fly the guy to the US with a police escort.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[DerekLyons]

Right - despite the influence of drugs, drugs didn't cause any harm. You're a fucking idiot.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[mewshi_nya]

Like installing Gentoo?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[DerekLyons]

No, they are not products of ignorance. They are products of people involved in drugs. The only product of ignorance here are created by fucking idiots who believe that black is white, 2+2=5, in the tooth fairy, and that drugs cause no harm.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Per your example, the mafia didn't cease to exist after prohibition, but much of their money and power were gained during prohibition. we have the same problem today with street gangs. Yeah there is always "bad" people who are drawn to illegal activity, but prohibition doesn't work. People will do what they want to do, and making it illegal only makes it less safe, cost more, and force interaction with "bad" people.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[ps2os2]

I agree with you. I think the same same police department did the same thing with people that were arrested after getting invites for a free trip to Hawaii (IIRC). You have to hand it to the police department they seem to have some sort of smarts.
Q: Which would you rather have fat policemen eating donuts or
            Policemen out doing their job?
A: The second part because at least they won't have a heart attack when they try and run after a robber.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Maestro485]

Except that it's not illegal. Tricking a criminal into committing/admitting to a crime is perfectly legal as long as it isn't entrapment. Which basically means, if I tell a suspect that I have proof he's guilty, and he subsequently confesses, it doesn't matter if I had proof or not. That is why we have the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. Entrapment is one thing (and very illegal), but mere trickery is not.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Drug dealing is often associated with other crimes: robbery, assault, murder, etc. While I agree with you that choosing to sell drugs is not necessarily indicative of a bad person in itself, and I preemptively agree with you that a lot of that ancillary crime is caused by the very fact that drug dealing is illegal, the fact that the dealer is willing to accept the circumstances and participate in that crime in order to deal makes him a bad person.

Then arrest people for robbery, assault, murder and not for drug dealing?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[ceoyoyo]

There's a little bit a difference between writing some open source program and having someone use some code snippet from it to do bad, and writing a program in order to commit a crime, then releasing it so other people can also commit crimes with it.

Yes, breaking into something and then telling other people, without telling the people who maintain that system how you did it should be punished. I don't think the people who find vulnerabilities and then report them should be punished - that's silly. But the ones who find vulnerabilities, exploit them for their own gain, never report them and then pass them along to criminals deserve to be punished.

You disagree. That's fine. Turns out the German courts agree with me, and the American ones would if they got a chance to try the case.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[ceoyoyo]

Worse. Like installing Windows ME AND turning on Clippy.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly my point, you've been lied to too much already.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm.. This gives me an idea...

1. GOTO international waters.
2. Start hacking.
3. ???
4. Profit.

Somebody had to say it...

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

"people are not inherently bad because they choose to deal drugs, but the illegality of dealing drugs attracts bad people to it"

If everything were made legal, I suppose all the bad people would have nothing to do, then, as they'd be attracted to nothing?

OOOR, maybe easily making $100,000+ a month has something to do with dealing drugs.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Maestro485]

Ummm I live in Pennsylvania. In this state, only "state stores" are allowed to sell wine and liquor, and only "beer distributors" are allowed to sell beer. You cannot purchase alcohol in drug stores or conveniences stores. Nobody is allowed to sell alcohol after 9pm except for a few big beer distributors who can stay open until 10pm. And nobody can sell wine or liquor after 9pm anywhere.

I haven't seen any turf wars over alcohol yet.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[rmdashrf]

The point wasn't whether the act itself was illegal or legal, it was about the question if someone who committed a crime in country A which causes damages in country B, should be tried in country B.

I agree that if this guy broke the law he should be prosecuted. Only by the country where the crime is committed, otherwise you leave loopholes open like the example I gave.

If a party in country B has damages, they can go through the legal system of country A to claim damages. This just feels like some nationalistic 'We are americans and don't fuck with us' kneejerk reaction. I had hoped that attitude had gone with G.W.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't mention that the Mafia also dramatically reduced it's size, profitability and support from the community, when prohibition ended.

Most of the mafias activities now a days are dealing in other banned things (drugs, guns, etc). The more these are deregulated, the smaller and smller the mafia get.

Additionally, the less time police spend targeting these activities, the more police resources are available to spend on people traficking, extortion and similar.

This makes their operations smaller, less profitable and even harder to run.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

So say I'm in some country where killing certain undesirable people is not illegal. From there I send a letter bomb to the house of an undesirable in the US and kill him. Well I didn't commit any crime in the country where I was, so therefore the FBI should just "GTFO" right?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

So when the police are questioning somebody accused of killing someone in your family they shouldn't use everything available to them? They shouldn't lie to to the suspect and say, "Your buddy just turned on you.You might as well give it up." No they should just say we don't really have a case you're free to go. I'm sure we know the answer and I'm sure we know how different your attitude would be if the crime affected you. I don't know about emperor of the world , but you have my vote for emperor of lack of common sense.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[DriedClexler]

Yeah, *great* point. That's why I'm glad to hear that you support legalization of drugs, so long as the drugs are used under regulated, registered, controlled conditions so as to keep the users from hurting others while they are high and their perceptions are distored.

Wait, you mean you don't support legalization of drugs even for setups like that? So then, your concern about the harm to others while the user is high ... was just a bullshit rationalization you never bothered to think about? I see.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[CarbonShell]

Well with the Taliban being a bad example because the US and them were friendly up until 9/11.
How the Taliban oppressed and killed people, blow up the Buddhas and hid Osama was not a real problem as long as they were welcome to a oil pipeline being built through their country.

Actually the US supported the Taliban because they were against drug trade.

So that kinda goes against your claim, at least that part.

Wasn't the US's puppet dictator in Panama (Noriega?) also a drug dealer?
Or are they only bad people when they are not friends with the US?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Roger W Moore]

Because it bypasses protections established by extradition treaties (or lack thereof).

No it doesn't. The person in question still has those protections they just, stupidly, decided to not to avail themselves of them. Supposing the interview had been real? the border guard could still have got him based on the name in his passport. It's really quite clever and, since they are not inducing him to do something illegal in anyway at all, quite moral.

I'd much rather see them use their brains like this than some of the tactics they have deployed in Canada which involved illegal kidnapping and lying to Canadian officials. THAT is something which bypasses the protections established in extradition treaties....not to mention an excellent way to spark major diplomatic incidents and lose allies if the agents get caught.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell would anyone ever want to go to Iran for a job?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[SanityInAnarchy]

Let the market decide.

Should the same apply to, say, net neutrality?... but I'll leave the Libertarian debate for later.

The more relevant fact here is, the market is deciding -- people like the GP have decided SecuROM and others simply aren't worth the time. The industry is stubbornly unwilling to see this for what it is, and instead make up excuses like piracy.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Uberbah]

Do you really think that's a realistic option?

Of course it is. There's also healthy skepticism and then there's anti-government propaganda.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

And further proof that laws and regulations affecting the Internet currently are incapable of doing so fairly.

The current legal systems of the world just won't work for everybody. It's really a bloody mess. And at the same time, you can't just go treat it as international territory even if that is the (currently) most logical, because you have so many ineptly secured sites and servers on the Internet that some MASSIVE damage to your nation would occur with no real recourse, except returning the favor.

Honestly, its a big headache even trying to think about applying laws to the Internet, which is why our law makers DON'T think about it. The best I can come up with is treating it like international territory but that brings up its own can of worms.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

And thus every undercover agent was removed from his job. And crime skyrocketed as all you had to do was ask "Are a policeman?" in order to know if you can trust them. Must be nice living in cloud-cuckoo land.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

What's really going to give the Feds pause is when a group like the RBN or its offshoots gets the same idea to entrap US federal agents the same way, lure them onto foreign soil, and then either imprison them or simply execute them.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[lordholm]

Although while I do in principle agree, let us take another example of a similar situation.

Some years ago a Swedish citizen of Kurdic origin was murdered by her brothers (also Swedish citizens) while they where visiting their families in Irak. The brothers where tried in the Kurdic courts for murder and where acquitted because they where "only protecting he family honour".

Fast forward a little time, and the brothers are back in Sweden and friend of the girl who had witnessed the entire thing went to the Swedish authorities, that had the brothers arrested and sentenced to life in prison.

Now, the crimes in this case was a bit more severe and both parties where Swedish citizens, but the principle is the same.

Person in country A commits crime against law in country B and is sentenced in country B.

The case here clearly illustrates that sentencing people for crimes abroad against your citizens is reasonable. The tricky part is drawing the line of which crimes this is reasonable for.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[misterv]

don't go to countries where you can get arbitrarily arrested for things such as defecating after a hearty meal. In other words, don't ever go to Iran...ever...

Re:shouldn't be legal

[rilian4]

Don't tell me you actually think that people doing malicious hacking shouldn't be appropriately dealt with by the country whose laws they fucked over by hacking.... I mean, all you'd have to do is go to international waters and you could do all you wanted, to any country you wanted, to any server you wanted, and there would be no retribution.

In the 1700s, there were men (and a few women) who would do just that(except the server part)...they were called pirates. Many operated in the Caribbean, some at the Barbary Coast...some elsewhere. Generally the navy of whomever they offended would go out and shoot them to stop them.

The problem for the pirates was that while they could attack anyone...they pretty much were at the mercy of any country they attacked that decided to fight back. The difference with an internet hacker is that they sit nice and protected behind their own country while people steadfastly proclaim "no crime was committed here...how can you dare think to punish them".

Yes, you file for extradition. But if that doesn't work, what next? The target of these attacks was in the US. Just because the attacker wasn't, doesn't mean he or she should not be punished.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

"The guy" was a German in Germany - he wasn't going anywhere, no matter how many forms the FBI filled out.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

ok, so basicly you're saying i can invite some americans at home in Eastern Europe, and then shoot them for trespassing

Re:shouldn't be legal

[GastronomicalEvent]

A better explanation would be police trying to sell heroin to a known heroin addict just to get an arrest. It's not really "tricking"

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

"Uh, if the crime was commited on US soil, it is the jurisdiction of where the crime was comitted. The FBI had to resort to such tactics because for whatever reason the German Authorities could not capture this person. FYI, if you dont know the crime was commited on Valve computers, meaning the original crime was performed in the USA."

Valve was asking for this to happen by having their development machines hooked up to the net, why the fuck would you hook you development machines up to the net in such a way as to allow this to happen? The truth is there are other ways to give your workers internet access and prevent this crap from happening in the first place

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

However, I'm sure other tax payers, such as corporations that own source code, would lobby to keep it.

Exactly...

that's why corporation should not have the same rights as a person ownership-wise and in other matters...

no that it's a particularly original remark... i mean: http://www.thecorporation.com/ ...

Re:shouldn't be legal

[szav!]

The source code was way too incomplete to be compiled, but the complete E3 alpha was released later, and was playable in itself.

However, a competing game company, for example, could've used some of the code as a basis for their engine, and nobody would know.. It's Valve's property, in which they've probably invested a good deal of money in the form of man-hours, so understandably they don't want other companies profiting from the code (modified or not) for free.

The source code was also used to write the first game resource decompilers, which in itself have been valuable tools to the modding community, so that's kind of a two-sided axe.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[cerberusss]

One more year of further suffering
There's no point of fucking bluffing
Open up your birthday present
It's a box of fucking nothing

(c) Brendon Small

Re:shouldn't be legal

[szav!]

Could this have to do with the fact that there are far less crackheads than occasional drunks in ?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[DrFalkyn]

Entrapment is when the authorities cause you to commit a crime (that you wouldn't otherwise) which is not the case here since the crime was already committed.

Slightly OT, but if that was the case, couldn't you get most cases of soliciting prostitution (where the police officer poses as a prostitute) thrown out?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[pclminion]

They should shoot out the tires, and if they can't do that, shoot out the driver. To go 120 mph to catch up to someone going 80 in a 70 to give them a ticket is absurd. If it's safe for them to go that fast, how can it be unsafe for the person only going 10 over the limit?

People (such as cops) can be trained to drive fast, as safely as possible. People can also be trained to perform open heart surgery. That doesn't mean we allow just any freak to do it. The road devolves to the lowest common denominator. As far shooting out tires/drivers, are you completely nuts? That's something from the movies. I personally don't want bullets flying around my city and bouncing into my house unless there is an obvious and immediate threat to life or limb. Nor do I want cars being driven by dead drivers careening across highway barriers at 80 miles per hour.

And anyway, the police give chase not for the speeding but because the individual is fleeing from the police. The moment you refuse to pull over you're already committing a completely different crime than speeding.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Askmum]

I couldn't agree more with this. Ok, you could discuss the fact of who should have jurisdiction over the hack of a server in country X, but my position is that the crime was committed in Germany and the FBI has no jurisdiction there
Contrary to a belief which seems to be rather common in the US that their laws are valid all around the world. Guess what: they're not.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[jesterzog]

But what most people seem to be missing is the sheer stupidity of the criminal. If a company I had hacked into, stolen source code from, and embarrassed publicly suddenly invited me to their corporate HQ in a foreign country, I would be a weee bit suspcious.

According to the article he was suspicious, he didn't actually show up in the USA and so they didn't catch him.

Perhaps you can't really trust this guy, but from reading the article it sounds as if he'd contacted them initially to claim that he'd hacked their network but hadn't leaked the source, and that someone else was responsible for it after he leaked the login info by accident. From there they struck up a conversation and invited him over, and he might have actually thought they were genuinely interested in employing him.

In hindsight it seems quite stupid to assume that, but if the guy's young and hasn't encountered many corporate dinosaurs. Some hackers just like breaking into things out of interest and think they're doing a service if they show people how to fix it later. He might have expected to be treated the same way that any of his friends would have treated him if he told them about security holes in their system.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[badpazzword]

What is the difference?

If the computer storing the game bits of code is based in the US, and he attacks it (hacks it), then he committed a crime under US law.

Do you really mean that Chinese people do not commit a crime by talking about "taboo topics" as long as they do that on US-based Blogspot?

The guy has undergone a trial in Germany already, and has been condemned already. What makes it fair for him to be charged twice for the same crime?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[pimpimpim]

poor people commit more crimes than rich people

That is, if you only count the things that are, currently, legally considered a crime.

Knowingly inflating the market for worthless loans, up to the point where the world market collapses, and still managing to get off with a huge bonus might not be a legal crime, but it certainly is a crime in any other way. I wouldn't mind some fitting extensions to the law here.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[weirdcrashingnoises]

while you're point is valid, people are going to (and did) obviously still buy HL2, to clarify for those that never got to try it out, the alpha leak had working demos of stuff that was shown at gaming conferences and used as promo vids online. i ran it on a geforce 4600 and a 1.4ghz AMD with 512 DDR ram, i still have burned copies of that alpha leak, infact.

and it only needs to be compiled once, after that it's just copy-copy-copy

Re:shouldn't be legal

[cliffski]

you do realise that citizens work for corporations yes?
Those corporations pay salaries to the citizens, and keep the economy afloat.
slashdot readers are quick to bash evil corps, but would be quick to cry foul the moment those corps fire them and said "fine you do it then".

People don't suddenly become evil the day they employ someone else.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[tnk1]

So if an Iranian company invited you to come work for them, you'd just go and expect the Iranian government to be able to do nothing?

Extradition treaties protect people who choose not to go to other countries, they don't really protect you if you decide that you are going to do the work for them and fly yourself there or let them fly you there. There are treaties and conventions that ensure that you have consular aid from your country, but if you went on your own, there's not much your country can do legally except complain... and that may work, if we don't want to annoy the foreign country's people/government. It's not a *legal* obligation, however.

By the way, fraud implies that you are telling untruths which deprive someone of their rights/property without due process. You are not being deprived of your rights if you have been apprehended under due process. Therefore, it is not fraud for someone to cooperate with the police to bring you in and in no way illegal. The police couldn't *make* Valve set up the deception, but they certainly could ask them to do it and gain their cooperation.

If I conspired to hire a hitman to kill someone in Germany, and I then went to Germany under any circumstances, you'd better believe I'd be in a German jail so after I arrived, no matter why I was there.

If you commit a crime in a country that is not your own, your citizenship in another country does not mean you can carry out that act and then walk with impunity into another country. Your ignorance of the law is not a defense.

As far as I know, its perfectly legal to induce someone to come to your country even under false pretenses if it is for the purposes of simply apprehending the person for a fair trial. Cops in the US are perfectly in their rights to use trickery to arrest you and in questioning you. If they are arresting you, they have already followed due process in obtaining a warrant. They can then execute that warrant to find you in any way they can (unless it is specifically illegal or violates the rights of someone other than yourself). The only thing they can't do is enforce it outside their jurisdiction.

No one is required to give you a warning that an action by you will get you arrested, if there is a warrant for your arrest already. I mean, do the cops call ahead to let perps know we're heading to their parents' house to go get them so that they have the opportunity to not go there? No. The cops may do that if they expect them to turn themselves in and they don't feel like apprehending them, but by no means do they have to.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[jimicus]

Haha, you're funny.

On the whole, drug users do commit more crimes than non-drug users. I'll give you that.

On the other hand, poor people commit more crimes than rich people. Young people commit more crimes than old people.

Punish the crime and treat the addict.

Don't ignore illegal drug trafficking, regulate it.

Drug use and sale in and of itself should not be a crime.

You are assuming a number of things about drug addicts which I can tell you from having lived with one are frequently not true:

1. That the addict is aware of their addiction.
2. If aware of the addiction, that the addict is aware of the problems their addiction causes to them and those around them.
3. If aware of the problems, that the addict cares about any of them.

You can't usefully treat someone for drug addiction when they either don't recognise or don't care about their own situation.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[EvolutionsPeak]

If people who deal drugs are guilty of robbery assault or murder then arrest them for those crimes. Don't make something else a crime just so you have an excuse to arrest them. If you do that you will end up making criminals out of many otherwise decent people, and that is just the start of your troubles.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[jimicus]

I agree with the general thrust of your post - that there's a lot of power handed over to the police and the judicial system, and abuse of that power must be heavily punished...

Cops have fought in court for the right to lie.

But I can't believe any policeman would actively stand up and go on record saying that they can't see anything wrong with speaking complete bullshit to get someone punished.

(Quite a few senior police officers in the UK have bemoaned that they can't put people behind bars unless there's enough evidence, and there are lots of people they'd love to put away but can't owing to lack of evidence, but I don't recall ever hearing one crossing the line to say "therefore, we should be able to get people locked up purely because we say so" - though the way the UK is going that's probably only a matter of time).

Re:shouldn't be legal

[dword]

Yeah, big deal that someone stole something you did.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[vux984]

So by your reasoning, you should be able to be imprisoned by the chinese government if you watch (by chinese government deemed) illegal content on a website that's hosted on a server in China. Even though the content of the website is perfectly legal in the country where you are browsing in? No? Didn't think so... This type of entrapment is a slippery slope.

This is exactly how the world works. ANY country can issue an arrest warrant for any person, at any time.

It doesn't MATTER where the person is. It doesn't matter where the crime was committed.

Canada could have issued a warrant over this for him, and arrested him the moment he stepped into Canada. Of course, why Canada would bother is a separate question, and if they did, it would likely be dismissed by the court because there is no legitimate claim to jurisdiction under Canadian law. But the point remains that they -could- still arrest and try him.

A country like China, very well could pass laws that make it legal in China to prosecute a German hacker, hacking the US from Germany. Of course they still wouldn't have the ability arrest him outside of China, but they could also issue a warrant for his arrest, and if and when he shows up in China, they could arrest him, try him, and sentence him according to their law.

The ONLY thing preventing this are various treaties, and other political niceties; but at the end of the day, if China wants you bad enough, and is willing to take the political fallout over the issue, the moment you step into China, you are finished.

If you go out into the world today,
be prepared for a big surprise...
If you go out into the world today
you'd better go in disguise...

For if any government any where has
decided they want your ass.
Today's the day, I'm sorry to say, it won't be much of a picnic.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[FireFury03]

People don't suddenly become evil the day they employ someone else.

However, a company with, say, 10,000 employees generally seems to have a *lot* more political power than 10,000 individual citizens. Whilst the company is being benevolent this isn't a big problem, but large organisations rarely stay that way - eventually they tend to use that political power to further their own interests at the expense of the larger population.

This isn't about "being evil", it's about the fact that most people and organisations value their own interests above those of others, so giving them a disproportionate amount of power is a really Bad Thing.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[SethJohnson]

They already know what will happen to them if they get caught by us, so what does it matter if they trust us or not?

The government's trustworthiness comes in helpful when trying to defuse hostage situations.

Seth

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Drugs like cocaine, meth, etc. all distort the perception of whoever takes them to the point where they can and DO harm others around them with or without realizing they're doing so.

I believe that "drugs cause violence" is a myth.

Bad people do drugs and then violence because they take pleasure from both and even greater pleasure from combining the two. They get to use up more of their body energy and feel no pain or fatigue, so violence seems effortless, giving them a feeling of having a super-power.

Plus, they get to blame it all on the drugs afterwards.

Almost all of the above holds for violent drunks, too. Everyone who ever got drunk knows that when you are deeply drunk, you are unable to fight (too slow and disoriented), but if you are still able to fight, it means you are still reasonable enough to know what you are doing, so no blaming it on the booze!

IMHO, such criminals should be punished harsher then sober violent ones. They are seriously damaged and dangerous.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[RockDoctor]

FYI, if you dont know the crime was commited on Valve computers, meaning the original crime was performed in the USA.

There's a hidden assumption in there - actually several. They may be correct, but your point is only valid if they're all correct.

• You're assuming that "Valve" is an American company - in the corporate sense ; it's perfectly credible that (for example) tax reasons, it's not an American company, though they maintain a façade of being American for political reasons.
• Even if Valve are actually an American company, you're assuming that the servers in question are in America ; given the relative costs of bandwidth and administration, it's not incredible that a Valve programmer sitting in a home office in Much Hammering (why would they work in a centralised, expensive office?) is working on code stored on a server actually hosted in India.
• ("Much Hammering" is a fictional programmer's enclave in the Schwarzwald, or anywhere the programmer chooses to live ; the code jockey is hired for his skills, not his physical location. One of our staff programmers recently moved 500+km over the border into England, but that doesn't stop him from continuing to work for us.)
• You're also assuming that the command passed at some point through communications infrastructure located in the US. Even if Valve were an American company, if their data were in India and were hacked from Germany, the routing may well not have touched American-owned or -operated systems at all.

Some (if not all) of those points need to have been checked before spending American TaxPayer's money on this (via the FBI). It's quite plausible that no crime, by American rules, has been committed. It's equally plausible that an alleged crime is not supported by sufficient evidence to succeed with an extradition request under German law.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[locofungus]

I don't know about Swedish law, but as a UK citizen, there are certain crimes I can commit under UK law even in a country where the action would not be a crime.

For example, it would be illegal for me to marry and have sex with a fourteen year old even if I did it in a country where such things were permitted.

If I think that the law is wrong then I can vote for someone who says they will repeal the law.

(I think there is a valid moral and ethical point to having "age of consent" laws - and I think there is good reason for the UK government to put pressure on other countries to try and ensure that girls in particular do not lose out on their education due to marrying and having children very young, but I have very little truck with the current paedophilia hysteria that grips the UK media when, for example, a 15 year old and a 20 year old are in a sexual relationship, or even worse, a 17 year old and her (or his) 30 year old teacher - there's a professional ethics issue but not a paedophilia problem)

Other laws don't carry abroad like that - for example, it's illegal to buy alcohol under the age of 18. But in Germany the limit is 16 (at least it was when I was there in my teens). When I was in Germany I bought alcohol while I was under 18 but no crime was committed by either country's laws.

I have no problem with US law applying to US citizens, even when they are outside of the US; and I have no problem with US law applying to nationals of other countries when they are in the US. But I do have a problem with Americans thinking that US law applies to other country's nationals when they are not in the US.

Tim.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[N1AK]

Well, your views are your own but I think you probably should have a problem with this.
One of the important purposes of law enforcement is to discourage crime, this is based on the simple assumption that many crimes are less attractive due to the risk inherent in being caught. The United States allows a great deal of individual freedom to it's member States regarding many things, including laws and sentencing.

To trick people into believing that they are within one jurisdiction when they are actually in another is to undermine this. Would it be acceptable if the police moved the roadsigns for Nevada far enough that they could build a brothel that was technically in California and prosecute people who thought they weren't breaking the law?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[jonbryce]

The German authorities did punish him, so they must have been able to capture him. They obviously considered that it was their responsibility to punish him, and for that reason didn't hand him over to the US.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[DerWulf]

Why the hell do people always choose the most extreme examples? Couldn't you just have gone with smoking weed in Amsterdam or something? Anyways, in germany ALL laws 'carry' like this but the actual reason is that your government thinks it *owns* your ass. There is NO reason why a country should consider their laws worth squad outside their borders ...

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

I think, that if the brothers citizenship did not matter in this case.

So, two persons murdering a Swedish citizen when they are abroad, they are acquitted locally and then sentenced to life in prison for murder in Sweden.

The point still stands, and I think the same should apply for murdering an American citizen. But, in any case, where do you draw the line?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[jonbryce]

Depends in what way they would hurt IBM. If they hurt them by making them provide better employment conditions, they might vote for them.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[locofungus]

Going to Amsterdam to smoke weed isn't illegal for UK citizens. There is very little that you cannot go abroad to do (assuming that it's legal in your country of destination).

I think there are a few crimes that can be prosecuted in the UK even if they were committed in a foreign country (provided that the crime exists in both countries) - I think murder falls into this category (In particular, murder of a spouse while on holiday may well be prosecuted in the UK, particularly if there was no body and the foreign country decided not to prosecute) but for the most part, as a UK citizen you obey UK law in the UK and foreign law in a foreign country.

Tax law is about the only other thing I can think of where UK law applies to UK citizens abroad (and UK tax law is pretty generous to UK citizens living and working abroad)

Tim.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[mi]

It depends on where he committed the crime. He's a german citizen commiting a crime in germany (and he was punished for it under german law) then that FBI can GTFO as far as I'm concerned. If they were that bothered they could have applied for extradition rather that using underhand tricks.

The original poster, who started this thread, claimed: "tricks like this should not be legal". And the follow-up question was: "Why not?" Your point is, the guy shouldn't be prosecuted here, even he were caught without the use of a trick...

Why not stick to the subject of the thread (which you didn't even change, it still says: "shouldn't be legal") and discuss the legality (or lack thereof) of the trick?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[mi]

Wasting money protecting source code after the event.

You realize, of course, that you've just immunized all successful IP-thieves from prosecution, don't you?

The next logical step would be to close all murder cases — what's the use, if it is not going to bring the victims back to life?..

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really mean that. Then its official. Most Americans are nut cases.
I think its a sick and twisted way of tricking people into conviction.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[mrrudge]

And when none of these 'prospective employees' are employed, what's the message to the current staff ? The management tried to replace us and failed so :

- The job market doesn't contain the skills to replace us ?
- The management failed to find new employees ?
- No-one who doesn't work here currently would want to, so working elsewhere is preferable ?

I think tricks and fear may get you short term productivity, at best.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[mi]

So by your reasoning, you should be able to be imprisoned by the chinese government if you watch (by chinese government deemed) illegal content on a website that's hosted on a server in China.

Yes, as a matter of fact, that's true. I wish, more people realized that, and stopped doing business with China...

Not that your analogy is valid, really, because prosecutions in China aren't determined by the Law, but mostly by political and/or economic expediency.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[vegiVamp]

> I tend to know a bit more than the average idiot

Did you just admit to being an above average idiot?

(sorry, couldn't help myself :-) )

Re:shouldn't be legal

[sa1lnr]

"the people currently selling them would move"

Into banking maybe? At least they have lots of hard cash. ;)

Re:shouldn't be legal

[ultranova]

The ONLY thing preventing this are various treaties, and other political niceties; but at the end of the day, if China wants you bad enough, and is willing to take the political fallout over the issue, the moment you step into China, you are finished.

So the lesson here is to never, ever, under any circumstances or for any reason whatsoever, go to either China or the United States. Got it.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

So when the US does it, it's ok, but when Iran does it it's not?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[tibman]

Most of my programming references are online. I guess i could get hardcopies of most of it instead? But damn, sometimes i need a break from programming and being able to fire up some HL2 mod or EVE-online is nice. But you're right, something should have been specifically set up to prevent this source theft.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[meringuoid]

Of course, because FARC, Pablo Escobar, and the Taliban are all swell guys who are just trying to make an honest buck if only we weren't so hard on them.

As I recall, when the Taliban were in charge of Afghanistan they did a pretty good job of reducing opium production. Our own occupation forces are not so effective. Our invasion of the Middle East may not have secured us the oil supplies we were after, but the supply of heroin to Britain and America is now plentiful and inexpensive.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Jaysyn]

MDA & MDMA was sold over the counter at head shops & convenience stores till the early 80's

Still not sure what your point was or who you were responding to though.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Jaysyn]

Hell tax it! God knows we need the revenue & it's going to happen whether the powers-that-be like it or not.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[borizz]

Why doesn't that mean he should not be punished? If I do something in country A that's legal in country A to someone in country B, country B should file for extradition, and if that does not work they're out of luck. Yes, I know it sucks and people can get away with things this way, but do you want to live by the laws of for example China, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan? I don't.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[ultranova]

It's not illegal, nor should it be. After all, if it were illegal, why would it be illegal? Have I deprived anyone of life, liberty, or property? I have not. If people came and wasted their time, they did so voluntarily.

So it's OK for me to sell you a deed to a piece of land I don't own ? I mean, you gave me your money voluntarily, so I have not deprived you of anything, right ?

Coming to think of it, since breaking a contract does not deprive anyone of life, liberty or property, I think we should annul all contract law ASAP.

You need to get out of this mindset that something "ought to be illegal" just because you don't like it.

And you need to understand that libertarianism and related ideologies lead to an aristocracy, which would screw up almost everyone. I, for one, do not want a return to the Dark Ages, where the local land-owner was a de facto despot due to being able to afford to hire an army, and the central government was too weak to stop him.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[pregister]

(Note to young slashdotters - replace "having sex with your wife" to something suitably embarrassing that you wouldn't want plastered all over the Internet. Use your imagination.

Whats wrong with your wife?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

"False advertising" laws? No such thing.

Oh, you meant the FTC act - the part that they haven't prosecuted a case under for a decade? Yes, and you can't paint your horse, but once the law is neglected that much, it might as well not exist.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Nursie]

"Couldn't you just have gone with smoking weed in Amsterdam or something?"

is it illegal for US citizens to go to the 'Dam and smoke weed?

'cos it's not illegal for Britons to commit crimes against British law in countries where the law is different. In general. He used an extreme example because it's almost the only example.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[KDR_11k]

And since there has been talk about extradition: The German constitution does not allow a German citizen to be extradited except to a EU country or an international court of justice.

Doesn't the EU force an exception there for the US? I think people can be extradited to the US provided it is guaranteed that their human rights will not be violated (that means no death sentence and no torture).

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Nursie]

"I can set up fake job interviews with as many people as I want. So can the feds."

Good luck with that.

Is the US trying to make its public/international image even worse?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[jacquesm]

they're not, but you are not likely going to get arrested for using them, only for dealing them. Having lived there for 28 years of my life I can tell you that there is indeed a drug problem in Amsterdam but it's mostly limited to foreigners that come there to use drugs the 'mokummers' that use (hard)drugs do so in the privacy of their homes for the most part, though, of course there are exceptions. If the foreigners would have access to drugs in their own countries the drug problem in Amsterdam would probably be less than 10% of what it is today. (as with all internet statistics I just made this one up on the spot) /me is not a drug user, hasn't smoked or drank ever, in general is a very boring guy but doesn't care one bit whether someone else does or does not use drugs, live & let live.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Maguscrowley]

Another person taking a single sentence and twisting it's context into an excuse to make a sarcastic retort.

I'm sure I'd find examples. However, I was speaking in terms of pure logic and semantics. Yes, I tend to speak "literally". Historical examples show a tendency towards something, not dire prophecy to be fulfilled.

In no case but where the example and it's circumstances make up all possible examples and circumstances in the universe of discourse can proof by the example be a valid form of argument in by itself.Hence, things in a history book to not refute my statement.

Also, you should have noticed the careful wording to allow for known tendencies and possible exceptions in the future. The negated "did or did not" and the "will or will not" exclusive or here states that the examples given will not be locked into a set pattern.

That is my rebuttal assuming that you were actually talking about the logic of my post rather then attacking me through a single exploitable line. For the latter case: go back to /b/ asshole

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Ginger Unicorn]

that's why they just stand there and wait for someone to come up and proposition them. standing in the street isn't the same as asking someone if they'll give you money for sex.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Atriqus]

True, every voter has equal say. But those with access to lobbyists are more equal than others.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

You can go to hell, you and your slippery slope fallacy!

Re:shouldn't be legal

[INT_QRK]

I disagree. People who commit crimes of predation are fundamentally flawed on a number of levels. Why shouldn't the FBI, or any law enforcement charged with protecting the public from predators, exploit character weakness as long as they stay within the law? I've never bought the idea that "sting" tactics that lure criminals into thinking that they see a soft target are somehow unethical. You attack me and I'm entitled to defend myself by any ethical construct -- in this case through my society's law enforcement and judicial system. This is intended to do one of two things; either it deters the predator from casually hurting others by introducing a hazard of potential negative outcome; or, failing that, it removes them for some time as a threat, in essence isolating the wolf from the playground. Bad hackers who hurt other people they don't even know by breaking their things or stealing things not theirs are mean. Mean people suck. What's the problem?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Ihlosi]

Doesn't the EU force an exception there for the US?

Err ... no. The EU doesn't trump a countrys constitution.

I think people can be extradited to the US provided it is guaranteed that their human rights will not be violated (that means no death sentence and no torture).

No. The only exceptions from the article of the constitution of Germany are extraditions to other EU members or to international courts, and they have to be allowed by additional legislation.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[ultranova]

First of all, there is a huge difference between skirting the law for an occasional high, and making your living off of entirely criminal activities. In the first case, you weigh the crime against the rest of the persons life, and figure the minor infraction is innocuous enough not to put a taint on everything else. In the second case, the person's life is defined by committing crime.

Crimes, such as copyright violation ? Is that person's life defined by crime ?

I don't care if we all decide that even the worst aspects of dealing--like peddling to children--are 'victimless', that doesn't make an honorable living.

Peddling to children is not victimless, due to children's assumed inability to make informed choices. It seems you agree, since you put the word victimless in quotes. Thus your example is inapplicable to the matter at hand.

It all comes down to this: is breaking laws inherently bad ?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[jeremyp]

I don't agree with your assessment of where the crime was committed. In this case it was clearly committed in country B where the servers are even though the accused never physically left country A.

Let's try a different example. Let country A = Afghanistan and country B = the United States of America. Osama Bin Laden, located in country A, was guilty of conspiracy to commit murder in country B. Osama Bin Laden himself never set foot in country B so, by your argument, his crime took place in Afghanistan and he should therefore be tried for it in Afghanistan.

Do you think that any American would accept your argument in that instance?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[silas_moeckel]

Thats an entirely different analogy. Bail jumpers by definition has less rights than a normal citizen they traded some cash and those rights to get out of jail while awaiting trial. Now you could argue that the advent of bail bondsmen has corrupted the system judges used to let people out of there own at arraignment if they had roots in the community etc. Now they are forcing people to use an industry by not doing that and inflating the bond value since only a small percentage is required as the bond fee.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[knutkracker]

If people came and wasted their time, they did so voluntarily

Not true. 'Voluntary' implies full knowledge of what you are getting into, so they would need to be aware that there was really no job on offer for your statement to hold.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Kaukomieli]

I mean, all you'd have to do is go to international waters and you could do all you wanted, to any country you wanted, to any server you wanted, and there would be no retribution.

Pirates in international waters? You gotta be kidding...

It's as if Matt Groening saw into the future...
http://snpp.com/episodes/BABF08.html

Re:shouldn't be legal

[meist3r]

Damn straight and so should breaking into someone's network to steal the code for his latest project ... oh wait.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the asshole moderators were out in full force last night.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[m50d]

Because it spoils the possibility for someone to genuinely do that, which is far more valuable than putting this guy behind bars.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[I cant believe its n]

How about the Pirate Bay?

Running a yellow pages service for torrents is still not illegal in the free world.

However, I'm quite sure that the guys running TPB would be arrested should they ever visit the USA.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[m50d]

People (such as cops) can be trained to drive fast, as safely as possible. People can also be trained to perform open heart surgery. That doesn't mean we allow just any freak to do it.

So let me take the same test the police driver had to.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Any time the police arrests a criminal, it is by definition after the event.

Philip K. Dick and Tom Cruise would like a word with you.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Beezlebub33]

Why the hell do people always choose the most extreme examples? Couldn't you just have gone with smoking weed in Amsterdam or something? Anyways, in germany ALL laws 'carry' like this but the actual reason is that your government thinks it *owns* your ass. There is NO reason why a country should consider their laws worth squad outside their borders ...

We use extreme examples because they clarify the principles involved and separate out the emotional attachment to a particular outcome.

Look, if a principle means that a rapist goes to jail, then emotionally you will like that principle. It if means that a known rapist walks, then you will emotionally oppose it. It is only when you can agree to the principle when it does something that you don't like that you really believe in it.

Its adherence to the principles that make us a nation of laws, not of men. To take a non-random example, I like the idea of spying on the 'bad guys', but you can't have warrant-less wiretapping. Even if it means that some of the bad guys get away. because the principle underlying illegal search and seizure takes precedence.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[smoker2]

If you don't have the guts to do it regardless of the law, then you probably don't have the inner strength to actually make it through the trip without freaking. It's not like riding a roller coaster, where after 30 seconds it's all over. Some trips can keep you going for 12 hours and more. Once you have started freaking, you are stuck with it. You need a very particular kind of attitude to be able to deal with that and not come out a shambling monkey. How much primal animal fear can you handle ? (hint if you're worried about breaking a law, then I'd guess not much) Imagine the very worst thing you can dream up - now amplify it and live through it. The mind is a very powerful thing, and not enough people know their own mind well enough when they're straight let alone when it has assumed the power that LSD can give.
I've seen big hard men reduced to quivering crying babies after thinking they could handle LSD.
I'm not saying that if you have the right attitude you won't freak, but when you freak (and everybody does sooner or later) you can handle it. I had to get someone to turn the stereo off once before the song reached a certain line, because I was so immersed that I felt that hearing the line in question was going to kill me. (Pink Floyd - Comfortably Numb).
Remember in the Matrix, Neo asked "if you die inside the Matrix, you die in real life too ?", Morpheus said "The body cannot live without the mind". This is quite possible. If I had been taking acid when the Matrix came out, I would probably never had taken as much as I did. As it happened, I stopped doing LSD a good decade before that film.
Pro-tip : never trip by yourself, always share the experience with a friend (who is in the same state). Know when to say no. If you have even the slightest fear about doing it - don't do it. That fear is the seed of a Bad Trip. It IS pitch black, and you ARE likely to be eaten by a Grue.
Beginners tip : just don't. But if you do, get as far away from civilisation as you can before you do it, and enjoy the stars or something. Avoid natural hazards (cliffs, ravines, rivers) and keep your clothes on ! Also, read the pro-tip.

My final word here is just to stress that hard drug taking is not like a funfair ride. You can't just get off the ride when you feel like it, and it will change you and your life, immediately and for ever more, even after just one trip. You will never be the same person ever again. None of what I just said is related to addiction, just the fallout from the experience. So, ask yourself - Do I feel lucky ?

Disclaimer : I am not a doctor, I am not your doctor. I post here to redress the imbalance of information between people who think drugs are cool and spout off bullshit, and those who have actually been down that road and survived (just). I will never and have never encouraged anybody to take drugs.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Legal yes, reality tv yes.

Bah! what am I saying!? Let my hackers live!

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Count Fenring]

Way to make a reasonable argument and then still come off like a bad guy.

Seriously. You'd be modded at least two higher if you hadn't added the "Uh" at the front, and hadn't accused the poster of "criminal reasoning" at the end.

I do wonder how they decide whether physical location of the perpetrator or physical location of the server is the important one. I believe they've ruled both ways in different circumstances.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[DocMAME]

Arrrrghh, and I would'hve gotten away with it too, mate if t'weren't for those meddlin' scallywag kids...

Re:shouldn't be legal

[poot_rootbeer]

It's not being a taxpayer that gives someone a stake in the government - it's being a citizen, and having a vote. That means that a lifelong welfare recipient and a survivalist hermit, neither of whom pay a dollar of tax in their lives, have a representative in Washington who is supposed to look out for their interests and listen to their concerns.

In theory, yes. In practice, both of the citizens you cite are going to be statistical outliers in whatever district their representative advocates for, and their concerns are unlikely to align with the concerns of the majority of citizens in that district: the middle class salarymen and salarywomen, aka the tax base. And if some of those citizens band together and pool resources to form organizations to effectively express their concerns...

Re:shouldn't be legal

[poot_rootbeer]

Many of thhe founding fathers were scared of democracy, and much preferred an aristocratic republic on the Roman model.

Yeah well, in the end, those founders were out-voted by their colleagues. Which either proves or disproves their point.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[v1]

... tricks like this should not be legal.

Why not?

Because what he did was not illegal where he lives. Luring someone onto your soil to trial them for something they did in another country isn't fair.

It would be on par with luring a woman from the Florida into Iran and then arresting her for driving her car in Florida, because it's illegal for her to drive in Iran.

I'm surprised this doesn't get thrown out of court. It's very similar to someone doing something, then a law being passed to make that act illegal, and then being arrested for having violated the law (in the past). Thankfully that one is still considered a farce.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Count Fenring]

Pedophilia hysteria is a problem, although prosecuting either of your example cases isn't hysterical.

20 to 15 is a condition where the adult member cannot possibly think the younger is of an age that can consent, and (by U.S. law, at least... I'm not sure on U.K. law) cannot have been legally ok for the two preceding years.

As far as the second example... I know that under Florida law, 24 - 17 isn't a problem, but 30 to 17 is. And I'm not sure that that's wrong. I'm not sure there is the potential for a healthy relationship there.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[MikeBabcock]

I'm already there -- we do not travel to the USA anymore. Period.

I live up here in that free country we call Canada. I refuse to sign over enough rights to be in a movie about 1970's Russia to visit an otherwise fine country.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

It's really quite clever and, since they are not inducing him to do something illegal in anyway at all, quite moral.
Lying for the purposes of arresting someone doesn't seem that moral. It seems more like fraud.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Count Fenring]

Except the thing he did in country A (Germany) is illegal in country A (Germany) as well.

Not that I entirely disagree with your main point; it seems to me that extradition would be a preferable method here. But your example is wrong, and the person is still way, way guilty of a crime according to both nations' laws.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[MikeBabcock]

It should be noted that several places (including Miami I believe) now forbid high-speed police chases for the sake of public safety.

I believe its the right move, and the police should be more aware of the double-standard citizens often observe about police behaviour.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

well except that MDMA is meth derivative you are correct.

MDMA precursors are very close to meth but you can not start with meth and get MDMA. Sorry.

and the are very few differences in the chain and there is also MDA and MMDA produce very different highs. MDA is very speedy and closer to meth. MMDA is more like doing dope and mushrooms at the same time, trippy and mellow.

organic chemistry kicks ass. Thanks RPI.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Count Fenring]

Lots of potential issues, some more valid than others... But isn't it possible that the FBI has information on the company's ownership, server locations, and such?

Instead of providing unproven hypotheticals, why not just look up Valve's company status? They're based in Bellevue, Washington.

As for their server locations... that's harder to find out, but there's not really a reason to think that they are in India, as the bulk of high-end hosting solutions are still in the U.S., and Valve probably runs their own servers, given that they have to support Steam.

Also, Germany doesn't extradite its citizens to America.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Count Fenring]

Except that the real problem isn't with corporations exerting power through their employees' votes, it's with them exerting power through lobbying and campaign contributions and such.

And those dangerous subversions have grown up in our democracy, but are not inherent to it.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Count Fenring]

No, they don't. On the other hand, neither are corporations automagically right because they employ people for the benefit of the corporation. You can have a good boss who pays you, or you can have a bad boss who tries to garnish your wages illegally and beats you when no one's looking.

We live in a situation where nine out of ten corporations are abusive bosses, who are constantly pushing at the government with their financial power to remove those laws that protect citizens from potential abuses of corporate power.

Some of this comes from corruption at the top. But some of this comes from the current mindset that ethics doesn't matter; that a corporation is run right if its only concern is pure profit, at the expense of anything at all.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Zenaku]

Short answer, No.

Longer answer: It should be apparent that the double jeopardy clause is a U.S. legal rule, and only applies to trying them twice for the same crime in U.S. courts.

In truth, double jeopardy, very rarely offers any protection at all. You can be tried for a crime in a state court, for example, and be acquitted only to then be convicted in a federal court, or in a different state. You could be acquitted of one crime and then recharged with a different crime tied to the same actions, like if you're acquitted of murder, they might still convict you of manslaughter, or "conspiracy to commit murder," or assault with a deadly weapon -- or whatever, depending on the circumstances.

Double jeopardy is very narrow -- it protects a person from being tried twice on the exact same charges, for the exact same action, in the exact same jurisdiction. That's all.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Rasperin]

No! Boundaries are geographically set on map and listed in size. They are actually quite defined, so if the cops moved the sign back the boundary is the same and it was fair game. The drug dealers should have grabbed the ordinance map and a gps.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Temporarily moving a geographic boundary does not make the arrest legal. The Charles County law enforcement were operating outside of the jurisdiction. Had I been the judge for these drug cases they would have been tossed out.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

I really miss the days when "Minority Report" was referred to as a really great short story by Philip K. Dick, instead of as a silly Tom Cruise movie.

Hollywood just keeps mining the man's excellent body of work, and churning it into crap.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[sampson7]

Sorry if it wasn't clear: the jurisdictional boundaries remained unchanged.

Normal:

Other County ---->Drug Deals -----> Welcome to Charles County sign/jurisdictional boundary

Sting:

Other County ---->jurisdictional boundary -----> Drug Deals ------>Welcome to Charles County sign.

The jurisdictional boundary is what controls -- the sign is irrelevant.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[muellerr1]

I was curious, so I looked this up. It's murky, but apparently if he's been tried and convicted in Germany but won't serve his sentence then he can be tried again in the US. I guess they're arguing that his sentence was too light and should be treated as if he hadn't served his sentence.

I doubt Germany would have extradited him to the US for this crime since they'd tried him already, but if he goes to the US of his own free will there's no reason he couldn't be arrested and tried again under US law. It sounds like he'd have a good argument to get his case thrown out, though.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Yah, the greed and egos of criminals shouldn't be preyed apon.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

you know how we've always wanted one of those!

Re:shouldn't be legal

[queequeg1]

Valve is incorporated in the State of Washington.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[wolfemi1]

I think that was opium, wasn't it?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Sobrique]

Not so much 'political power' as 'money'. Guess the two are approximately interchangable though.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Hoi Polloi]

Actually, as far as the law is concerned, if you infiltrate a computer on US soil you have committed a crime here and are therefore liable to US laws. Germany would have to agree to extradite him though but I doubt they'd have a problem with that. I assume they bothered using a trick instead of just asking for extradition because they were afraid he might flee or just wanted to speed up the process.

The US extradites drug traffickers in Columbia though the people buying the drugs from them are the criminals as far as I'm concerned. No one forced them to buy. In the case of Panamanian strongmen they just kidnap them with an invasion by the military.

we can't tell a sovereign country how they punish crimes committed within their borders

True that, but we don't have to be silent about it or condone it. Death for a few grams of a narcotic? Not much better than some country stoning people for adultery or even one young woman who was raped.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Ihlosi]

Germany would have to agree to extradite him though but I doubt they'd have a problem with that.

The problem is article 16 of the German constitution. It states that German citizens may not be extradited, with the only possible exceptions being extraditions to other EU countries or international courts under certain circumstances.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one that finds "COCAINE IN THE EYEBALL" hilarious?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[theelectron]

I had hoped that attitude had gone with G.W.

Uh... you do realize Bush is still in office? He will still be until January.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Toll_Free]

Read the rest of his post.

It also wreaks of misinformation and BS.

--Toll_Free

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Hoi Polloi]

Well I guess that explains why they wanted to use the job interview trick. If they can't extradite him they can try to get him to show up voluntarily.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[hansamurai]

Wasting money protecting source code after the event.

Are you proposing a Minority Report like world where we only arrest people for their thought-crimes before they commit the act?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[hansamurai]

Well, if he didn't commit _the_ crime he did commit _a_ crime under US law. I'm not saying he should be pursued in the way he was, but breaking into a network is still an offense, whether malicious or not.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[dintech]

I also wonder how another famous Gary (McKinnon) is getting along. The US didn't need entrapment because the UK just rolled over like a good little doggie and handed him to them.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[3p1ph4ny]

> if it were illegal, why would it be illegal? Have I deprived anyone of life, liberty, or property? I have not.

While I agree with you, I think it's important to note that this isn't really the criteria used for creating laws in the US (although, I wish it was).

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Draek]

Except that watching other people in their home without their consent violates their right to privacy, whereas source code only has inherent rights with respect to copying, watching it itself is meaningless. Plus, I see no reason why you, in your example, should be prosecuted for distributing pornography if, after all, you didn't.

The "breaking in" part is more problematic, of course, but doing a large-scale operation like this one for something like that? fly-murdering with a tank, and I do *not* like it when I see that in a government.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[ceoyoyo]

Where did this large scale operation come from? According to the article some guys from Valve got in touch with some guy bragging on IRC about breaking into their network, and started an e-mail conversation with him. They did spring for a 40 minute long distance phone conversation, of course. Plus they (Valve, NOT the FBI) told the guy they'd pay for his flight to the US.

Yes, if I give someone else the key (which I copied) for your house, or the combination to your safe, I'm responsible if they rob it.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I know, he has only been charged once in the US.

What does the US legal system, and it's pursuit of justice, have to do with the court systems in a completely different country? Nothing.

What makes this fair is that Germany should not have attempted to punish one of their citizens pro-actively. They should have extradited him to face the consequences of the crime he committed, not circumvent justice by dealing their own.

The real question is, what makes it fair for Germany to impose a punishment on a citizen when the crime was not committed against Germany or it's interests? How would the world have felt if Saddam sat in an AMERICAN court house instead of in front of the Iraqi tribunal that sentenced him to death?

At the very least, Germany could have sentenced this man to extradition to face the real 'victims' (very very loose term)?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Philip Shaw]

In this case (of the story), is this breaking the 'rules'? What if Valve were legitimately going to give this guy a job? Sure, they're expecting him to get sent to prison, but that doesn't mean the offer is necessarily fake. What if Valve was feeling vigilante and decided to hire the guy, then report him to the FBI the next week? Hell, what if they hired him _without_ intending to turn him over, but the FBI discovered him on their own? Or maybe a disgruntled employee reported him?

All those situations end up in the same place: the guy's arrested by the FBI. Which cases should be illegal? Why does it even matter? That's why police can use tricks to get people. There's nothing to say what's good and what's bad except a jury in a civil suit. And because we, as a society, prefer not to let criminals roam freely, such cases usually fail.

If Valve really wanted to hire him, wouldn't they be able to refuse to press charges[0] against him?

[0] The terminology in the US might be different, but the idea would presumably exist.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Openly patrolling wouldn't do a damn thing, the coke dealers would just stay in the neighboring county and continue getting light sentences.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[conspirator57]

Double jeopardy is delicious. And illegal. Scumbags.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[rts008]

No.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[bckrispi]

Absolutely not. Double jeopardy means you are tried twice in the same jurisdiction. You can commit a single "crime" and find yourself charged in state, federal and civil court.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[lymond01]

Exactly like those companies, though the degree is really the problem. Smoking will kill some people eventually, same as alcohol. And abuse of either, especially alcohol, can seriously affect your body and health. But neither is as extreme in the short term as even using (never mind abusing) cocaine, heroine, or crack. These drugs make the addictive qualities of nicotine look like cravings for pizza.

People have a responsibility to themselves, but a tough addiction is often beyond their personal control, and for someone to prey on that is wrong.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Right - despite the influence of drugs, drugs didn't cause any harm. You're a fucking idiot.

You haven't shown it caused those things. Air was involved too. Remove the air and none of those things would happen, is air the problem too? Some people are assholes and do nasty things with or without drugs.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[LateArthurDent]

So if an Iranian company invited you to come work for them, you'd just go and expect the Iranian government to be able to do nothing?

Not at all. If an Iranian company legitimately invited me to go work for them, and I agreed, that would be my problem.

I would also not be surprised if the Iranian government tricked people into visiting their country in order to be arrested. I don't think it's right, and I like to hold the US to higher standards than I hold Iran.

Extradition treaties protect people who choose not to go to other countries, they don't really protect you if you decide that you are going to do the work for them and fly yourself there or let them fly you there...It's not a *legal* obligation, however.

Right. I'm not advocating any type of legal obligations between countries, that would be insane (we don't have representation on laws passed in other countries). However, precisely because there's no legal obligation or recourse, it goes against the spirit of an extradition treaty negotiated in good faith.

For example, many countries with no capital punishment refuse extradition when the death sentence is a possible penalty for the accused. If the United States, knowing about these terms, never asks for an extradition and instead tricks the accused into traveling to thel US, they're forcing him to give up his protections for a crime he didn't even know he was accused of (since the extradition was never requested, he was never informed). In spirit, it's a little bit like not informing a suspect of his right to a lawyer, or his right to remain silent, and then tricking him into spilling his guts. I don't care if his guilty, they're tricking a person into giving up their legal protections.

By the way, fraud implies that you are telling untruths which deprive someone of their rights/property without due process.

I didn't say it was fraud. I didn't say it was illegal. I agreed with the original poster that it should be made illegal in a civilized country, such as the United States.

If I conspired to hire a hitman to kill someone in Germany, and I then went to Germany under any circumstances, you'd better believe I'd be in a German jail so after I arrived, no matter why I was there.

I don't have anything against a government arresting a non-citizen who is in the country. I don't have anything against a government putting a non-citizen they want to arrest on a watch list so they can arrest him the moment he arrives in the country. Even if he arrived for a job interview, assuming said interview is legitimate.

I do have a problem when a government wants to arrest someone who is not on the country, and instead of going through extraditions channels, they trick him into traveling to said country.

As far as I know, its perfectly legal to induce someone to come to your country even under false pretenses if it is for the purposes of simply apprehending the person for a fair trial.

As I've said before, I'm sure it is. I just don't think it should be.

Cops in the US are perfectly in their rights to use trickery to arrest you and in questioning you.

That's all well and good, but there are certain limits to what they can do. They can sure try to convince you to talk without calling a lawyer first, but they are required to inform you that you don't have to. They can ask to search your house without a warrant when they know they don't have enough evidence to get one, but the person is fully aware that a cop is about to search their house before they agree.

No one is required to give you a warning that an action by you will get you arrested

No, but they are required to give you a warning before you give up a protection you currently have. "Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. Now, please tell me everything you did yesterday at 8 o'clock."

Re:shouldn't be legal

[RockDoctor]

Instead of providing unproven hypotheticals, why not just look up Valve's company status? They're based in Bellevue, Washington.

Why waste my time learning how the business systems of a foreign country works? It's not as if it's a skill I'm likely to need again in the future.

As for their server locations... that's harder to find out, but there's not really a reason to think that they are in India, as the bulk of high-end hosting solutions are still in the U.S., and Valve probably runs their own servers, given that they have to support Steam.

This month, maybe, their servers are in the States ; next month, who knows? Where Steam's servers are is an even more open question ; one would hope that they're reasonably well distributed around the world, assuming that "Steam" is something that is sensitive to latency. As for whether source code is on a Steam server - well, I've never even bothered to consider using one, so your opinion on that is likely better informed than mine.

Also, Germany doesn't extradite its citizens to America.

Black helicopters and unregistered CIA-rented jets, is it?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Achromatic1978]

I guess it comes down to whether double jeopardy is a protection against being tried for the same crime twice, or or being punished for the same sentence twice. Taken further, you could claim that someone could be tried again on procedural grounds, perhaps because another countries rules of evidence differ (and notably, wouldn't necessarily need to be "worse" or "better", just "different"). But seems to me that arguments on severity of sentence were something that could have been handled at trial, by submission to the prosecutor, etc., not a case of "well we didn't like the sentence given, so we'll try it again". To my reading of your source, it seems unlikely he could be tried again:

"The Harvard Draft Convention does provide that no state should prosecute or punish an alien who has been prosecuted in another state for much the same crime".

The discussions on English law raise some merit, but seem more related to the fact that a person was avoiding service of sentence, rather than being explicitly allowed by the state not to serve it (i.e. to argue otherwise would be to cast aspersions on the established principles of suspended sentences in the US).

Re:shouldn't be legal

[fataugie]

I'm a taxpayer - I don't give a shit about it

So....the game company isn't?
So if someone fucks with you and your livelyhood, I'm sure you'd give them a pass as well?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[jp10558]

Double Jeopardy means the same court cannot try you twice for the same crime (in general). But if you, say, murder someone in New York State on federal property, you can be charged and tried by each jurisdiction you fell under for the law you broke. So The fed can charge you for murder on federal property, NY can charge you for murder in the state, and I guess the county could also charge you, and the city for that matter. None of that is double jeopardy because you've actually broken several laws at once.

So I doubt that foreign trials will matter any more, it's just yet another jurisdiction who's law you broke, were tried in, and may have served a sentance for.

Note: IANAL, and before going into a new jurisdiction, make sure you're not wanted for any crimes there...

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it's not fraud, and it's not illegal. What the government did, arresting a foreign criminal who committed a crime in the USA, is perfectly legal. How they got him to enter into the USA, by setting up a fake job interview, is also perfectly legal. I can set up fake job interviews with as many people as I want. So can the feds. It's not against the law.

But what most people seem to be missing is the sheer stupidity of the criminal. If a company I had hacked into, stolen source code from, and embarrassed publicly suddenly invited me to their corporate HQ in a foreign country, I would be a weee bit suspcious.

I thought he was in Germany.. which is not part if the USA. He should be tried in Germany. Also that English guy who looks like Spock and is accused of messing up US military computers when he was on his UFO hunt. He should be tried in England, and not be being extradited to the USA. He is alleged to have committed his offenses in England. Not part of the USA.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[amohat]

Because law enforcement need to keep themselves to very high standards if they want to be credible.

There's lots of ways an unscrupulous cop can catch criminals, if he believe that the ends justify the means.

Just off the top, when government agents pretend to be red cross workers so that they can sneak in and kill the captors and rescue the hostages, did they do anything wrong?

Well, they did save those hostages. But what about the next group of hostages? What about defiling the red cross, so that when actual red cross try to come in to do humanitarian work, they get gunned down as if they were agents?

What if you are a Washington employer looking for talent but word gets out that you are just another FBI front?

If we did not have entrenched monopolies acting like a telecom industry, there would have been some fall-out from them allowing agents to illegally and unethically capture all data through their pipes.

Just another example of lousy priorities by our esteemed law enforcement officials, all while they viciously protect their budgets no matter if they have to confiscate your property for whatever reason they can come up with to break even.

We do not have enough protection from these local para-military forces and their deeply ingrained conflicts of interest. What if crime actually goes down?!? Will they lay off police or will they figure out a new class of people to persecute to make up for the budget shortfall?

People shit on the school system, saying things like "throwing money at the problem doesn't help" but nobody ever holds the police to performance standards. Look, the worse cops perform, the more money we offer them.

There is zero accountability, laughable oversight, coupled by constant examples of incompetence and corruption at all levels...it's a sacred cow that nobody dares to consider touching...until they are the ones with their door kicked in and their dog shot down in front of them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003299_pf.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/978249/posts
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/04/police_shoot_dog_during_backya.html

Re:shouldn't be legal

[gillbates]

Have I deprived anyone of life, liberty, or property?

No, but you've deprived them of the money they would have made during the time they spent interviewing. When you consider the rate at which most engineers are paid, and that a typical interview is a full or half day, it gets fairly expensive.

If you aren't actually hiring, you're cheating these guys out of $250 - $300, at least.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Paul Slocum]

My experience is that, aside from state of mind and environment (which is very important), one of the biggest problems with LSD use is that the potency is so unpredictable. LSD is, by orders of magnitude, more potent than most other recreational drugs. One hit of blotter could contain a very small dose, or it could contain many times a typical dose. Back when I used LSD in the 90's, one hit of blotter would generally vary from 1/4 of a reasonable dose to 5x a reasonable dose, but most people do not take this into consideration. You're likely to have a rough time when you get one of those strong hits and eat the whole thing.

I think that if you're going to do LSD, it is important to evaluate the potency beforehand. Buy several hits of blotter at once, and start off by setting aside a day and taking 1/4th or 1/8th of a hit to see how strong it really is. Keep in mind that if it's really strong, then it could result in a full trip even with so little, so be prepared. And don't take 1/4th and then later take more when it seems like it's not that strong -- it can take hours for it to really kick in. I've made that mistake. Also note that you can't evaluate it the day before you intend to take a full dose because tolerance goes way up for a few days after you use it. Different people react in different ways to LSD, so don't just take other people's word for how strong it is.

Not to advocate drug use or anything...

Re:shouldn't be legal

[j_166]

Except it's not fraud, and it's not illegal. What the government did, arresting a foreign criminal who committed a crime in the USA, is perfectly legal. How they got him to enter into the USA, by setting up a fake job interview, is also perfectly legal. I can set up fake job interviews with as many people as I want. So can the feds. It's not against the law.

But what most people seem to be missing is the sheer stupidity of the criminal. If a company I had hacked into, stolen source code from, and embarrassed publicly suddenly invited me to their corporate HQ in a foreign country, I would be a weee bit suspcious.

I like the cut of your jibe. I'd like you to come work for me at my company's corporate HQ in East Kerplechistan. How soon can we get you booked in here for an interview?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Count Fenring]

I'm not saying do deep research... I'm just saying a quick google for their corporate website to see where they list themselves as incorporated wouldn't be a problem.

Black helicopters and unregistered CIA-rented jets, is it?

I don't understand what you're getting at, here.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[daigu]

If people came and wasted their time, they did so voluntarily.

They came because they were decieved, and if they were not decieved, they would not have wasted their time. That's different than voluntarily wasting one's time.

Suppose I were a contracter and my going rate for an hour of work is $150. If you invite me under false pretenses to talk about a nonexistent job for an hour, you'd get an invoice for my time. Maybe if you were a new client and we were not sure how we might work together, you might get an hour of time gratis, but we'd negotiate that up front based on who has vouched for you, whether I needed the work, etc.

Which leaves us with the question: Why is it that you feel like you can waste non-contract employee's time for free? It also leaves open the question of what means the government can employ to capture people it believes are criminals. Deception? Kidnapping? Where does one draw the line?

I think the matter is a bit more thorny that your post suggests.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[hcgpragt]

And with people wanting to help the police, Instead of not wanting to be involved in a dirty war.

In the long run you want to motivate the people to ' do the right thing'. Losing the trust you need for this by pulling a fast one is only a quick win. Sometimes good most times not worth it.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[AK Marc]

And while they may violate the civil statue, that's so vague there's no real line to draw. Sure, maybe telling someone that someone confessed is pretty obviously a lie, but what about a plain clothes police officer? If they anticipate what bank a robber will hit next, are they obligated to post a warning that the cops are there?

A plain clothes officer doesn't deceive anyone (unless he lies). You don't have to tell people what your guesses are. But if you have to lie to the crooks to get them to break a law, then you crossed the line. Any lie told to catch a crook should be considered entrapment. Anyone working at the request of the police should be held to the same standards.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[AK Marc]

The right to do something illegal but not have to worry about law enforcement doing something else illegal to arrest you? If you step outside the bounds why can't they? Too fair for you?

If you are for breaking the law to catch criminals, then you also are for planing evidence to convict people the cops think are bad. There is no functional difference between lying to help get a conviction and lying to help get a conviction. Then, since cops think everyone is bad (talk to someone that has been a cop for 30 years if you don't think that's an accurate characterization) they can just plant whatever they want to convict anyone they want, and it's a good thing for getting criminals off the street.

Or yes, it is too fair for me. You can't have one side breaking the rules they are enforcing in others. The hypocricy may be "fair" if you are out to burn down everyone you can, but "fair" is far from "just" or "right." So aiming for "fair" when you presume everyone is a criminal is unfair to all.

As someone already said, cops are trained for high speed pursuits

Irrelevant drivel. You can take the same training course as the cops. Take it, and the next time you get pulled over, tell them that you are properly trained, so you don't have to go slow like everyone else. The logic of the matter is that if they caught you, they had to have gone faster than you, thus their speed was either unsafe or yours was safe. But try logic with a cop on the side of the road and tell me how the back seat of the cruiser feels.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[AK Marc]

I personally don't want bullets flying around my city and bouncing into my house unless there is an obvious and immediate threat to life or limb.

So a speeding criminal flying through stop signs, stop lights, school zones, the hallway of the local mall, whatever is not an immediate threat to life or limb? Many high speed chases result in death. That seems to me that they are an immediate threat to life and limb. If there is a chase, and they flee, then I assert they are an immediate threat to life or limb and must be stopped. Also, fleeing from cops is usually a felony, and as such, I believe cops should be free to use deadly force to stop a dangerous felony in progress.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[crazy al's]

Not in the US - consider the cases of anticipatory arrests in our election season just past. We don't need no stinkin' cause - we can figure that out later....

Re:shouldn't be legal

[AK Marc]

I don't recall ever hearing one crossing the line to say "therefore, we should be able to get people locked up purely because we say so"

Then you haven't been to a speeding trial.

"Do you have any physical evidence my client was speeding?"
"No, just my word that he was."
"And where's the printout from the RADAR gun?"
"We are not required to provide that or show it to the person ticketed, so you only have my word."

And, they will convict every time on nothing other than the word of a cop. Even if you get up in court and state "I wasn't speeding. I was passed by another car right before I saw the officer, and I believe that he read their speed instead." Of course, the cop will swear under oath that on dicket number 200 of the 800 he gave that day, that he specifically remembers that there was no car in the lane next to that vehicle, and he will be believed.

Not quite locked up, but I've never heard a coached cop say "I don't remember" or "I'm not sure" when it is obvious that there is no way he could clearly remember all the details from one ticket among thousands that was issued months ago. So yes, cops perjure themselves all the time to convict people they think deserve it.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[jimicus]

I don't debate for a minute that people get convicted for relatively minor infractions like speeding on the word of one policeman.

What I debate is that any policeman would say to a journalist that they believe the right to put someone in prison in their say so should be enshrined in law.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[AK Marc]

So it's ok to do, as long as it isn't the law? I think that's completely backwards. If they would never admit to it or advocate for it publicly, then they should be banned from doing it. That's like the quotas. They were found to be illegal, so now they have quotas that are no longer admitted to. The situation is exactly the same as the illegal situation, except now the police lie to us about it. That never seems to me to be an improvement.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[pclminion]

Also, fleeing from cops is usually a felony, and as such, I believe cops should be free to use deadly force to stop a dangerous felony in progress.

Not if it involves flinging bullets through my neighborhood. I'd rather the cops simply abort chase and deal with it some other way. Of course this depends on the circumstances. There's a reason you don't hear of many police chases ending with the cops firing at a moving vehicle -- it's ridiculously dangerous to bystanders.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[bhiestand]

The US has laws about sex tourism... If you travel overseas in order to have sex with minor children, for example, you can be charged in the US even if it was legal where you did it. I'm sure there are more laws like this.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[jimicus]

I didn't say it was OK, I said that it happens.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Mortimer82]

I don't know how it works in the rest of the world, but in South Africa, the legal age for girls is 16 and 18 for guys, however, if your partner is less than 21 years old and you are more than 10 years older than your partner, then you need consent from a parent/legal guardian of theirs.

I think if you live in a rural, traditional, village, they are more lenient on the age, however, we are talking about what are effectively uneducated 3rd world citizens.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[AK Marc]

Not if it involves flinging bullets through my neighborhood.

Have you seen the video of the LA bank robery that's famous? The one where the guys are in full body armor with automatic weapons. The cops kept shooting until they were dead. And, of all the things that incident was used for regarding changes in police tactics, not firing back wasn't one of them. So most people would seem to be ok with bullets flying in order to stop people committing dangerous felonies. So, I understand your opinion, but assert it's the minority opinion.

There's a reason you don't hear of many police chases ending with the cops firing at a moving vehicle -- it's ridiculously dangerous to bystanders.

Can you name a single time where a stray bullet fired during a high speed chase ever hit anyone? I've never heard of it happening. I think it may have never happened. As such, any assertion of it being unsafe seems absurd. Staring at rocks is unsafe, you never know when they'll attack and staring at them provokes them. Sure, there's never been a rock attack, but that doesn't mean staring at them is safe.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[pclminion]

So most people would seem to be ok with bullets flying in order to stop people committing dangerous felonies. So, I understand your opinion, but assert it's the minority opinion.

That's really not what we're talking about though. Somebody who refuses to pull over MAY be a dangerous felon, or they might be a felon only by virtue of not pulling over. That's nowhere near as clear a threat as somebody who has already shot at the police. I'm not in any way trying to say that police shouldn't fire their weapons when necessary.

Can you name a single time where a stray bullet fired during a high speed chase ever hit anyone? I've never heard of it happening. I think it may have never happened.

I think the reason it has never happened is because the police typically don't shoot at moving vehicles, nor are they supposed to. Again, I think the idea of cops firing at an escaping suspect or shooting out the tires is a fantasy from the movies, precisely because it's so unsafe.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[im_thatoneguy]

Your honor I didn't commit the crime! I just broke open the window and crawled into their house. Moved all their stuff around and then helped up 3 other criminals into the window. I didn't take anything!

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Do you really mean that Chinese people do not commit a crime by talking about "taboo topics" as long as they do that on US-based Blogspot?

That doesn't follow from what GP said. The question of where an alleged crime occurred, and therefore of which courts have jurisdiction over it, is a very complicated, subtle issue that doesn't allow for simple generalizations like that.

Basically, if you apply the heuristic that the crime occurs where the damage is done, then you get the following: (a) the German guy's crime occurs in the USA, because the effect was to deny somebody in the USA their right to control the use of their own copyrighted materials; (b) the Chinese folk who post to Blogspot commit their "crime" in China, because the "damage" their "crime" "inflicts" is to Chinese society.

Yes, it's fucked up, but as somebody said in another thread, the problem is not how jurisdiction works; the problem is China's government.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[LingNoi]

Come on now, that's not accurate.

More like you figure out how to open the door, walk around the house, read some of the notes left on the fridge.

Then after you're done, go boast about what you did while someone listening runs over to the house figures out how you got in then steals everything.

Meanwhile you're in court being charged for stealing all the possessions.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[mikesd81]

I never thought of that. It makes it worse. Unless it's a joint bust, you were out of jurisdiction, making it even MORE illegal on the police's end.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Cowpat]

for all we know, this boundary-moving story takes place before GPS was widespread. So now a person has to take an orienteering course to be able to make sure that the county boundary sign is in the right place, and that only counts if the other local landmarks haven't been moved as well.

Or maybe it happened a few years ago with only an old GPS system available - the margin of error on those things was high enough that you couldn't know within 20 or 30 feet really where you were.

Which brings me back to my original point, which is that in objective reality (where most of us live), the only plausible* way to tell where you are on the ground with respect to boundary lines is to go by where the official markings are. Juries are supposed to be there to bring this sort of common sense to the court room and acquit for lack of jurisdiction on that basis.

*plausible way means any way which doesn't require non-trivial equipment, or education beyond that which a person completing their stautory education could be expected to have had.

What if, as well as moving the signs, they'd printed up phoney maps, so when the nefarious types get a map of the county boundaries and compare to GPS, the map shows them on the one side when infact they're really on the other. Would that be ok?
How about it they leave the original maps, but move the signs and put up high-powered transmitters to send out phoney GPS data thus leading people to believe that they're somewhere that they're not?

How much skullduggery to trick people into being somewhere other than where they think they are is ok? Is there a limit? Or does it depend on the public opinion of the people that they're catching with it? Would it still be ok if it were being done with state boundaries? or national boundaries?

My opinion? No skulduggery is ok; if an agent of the state deliberately misleads you, that should be reason enough for you to be treated as if what you were told is true.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Uberbah]

Of course, because FARC, Pablo Escobar, and the Taliban are all swell guys who are just trying to make an honest buck if only we weren't so hard on them.

Drug lords weren't created by drug use, but by the War on Drugs. We learned our lesson with banning alcohol with Prohibition...just haven't learned it yet with marijuana, cocaine or heroin.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Neoprofin]

I think it's a perfectly fine analogy given that the argument is that the police should not be allowed to mislead a person to revealing themselves and has absolutely nothing to do with the legal status of said person in the context of this discussion.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[AK Marc]

That's really not what we're talking about though. Somebody who refuses to pull over MAY be a dangerous felon, or they might be a felon only by virtue of not pulling over.

If a high speed chase is dangerous, and running is a felony, then someone that runs from the cops is a dangerous felon in the commission of a dangerous felony. That seems pretty simple to me.

Re:shouldn't be legal

[RockDoctor]

Black helicopters and unregistered CIA-rented jets, is it?

I don't understand what you're getting at, here.

Since (as you say) Germany doesn't extradite it's citizens to the USA (presumably because the USA government is in the habit of murdering it's own citizens), then the USA government will use it's standard tactics of kidnapping followed by extraordinary rendition in order to get the people it wants into the detention that it wants, under the questioning it wants. Isn't that what your post-W constitution requires?

Re:shouldn't be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Drugs are by and large a choice that effects no one except yourself

And their family and friends around them. As they turn more and more into drugs. Borrowing and stealing money to feed the habit.

Trust me when I tell you this. I have people say they would sell everything *I* own too feed *their* habit. They would say or do ANYTHING to get it. As by that point they do not care.

You sound as if you are a moderate user who has managed to justify what they are saying. Trust me you *ARE* hurting those around you. You may not be costing yourself or them money. But in emotional cost it is high. Stop lying to yourself. You probably will ignore me as 'i do not know what i am talking about'. Trust me I do.

a fun bit of trivia

[Digitus1337]

So many people heard that the Half Life 2 engine source code was taken, that they started referring to the engine as the "source engine", and it's been known by that name ever since.

Re:a fun bit of trivia

[Deltaspectre]

Not quite the story, if you happen to believe Wikipedia

Re:a fun bit of trivia

[aliquis]

Except according to this wikipedia entry it's called src/source because it was forked of the GoldSrc engine and they just shorten the name of the new dir to Src.

Your story seemed to unlikely that I just had to check it up somewhat.

Re:a fun bit of trivia

[shadow42]

From the talk page of a Valve developer on their developer wiki:

When we were getting very close to releasing Half-Life 1 (less than a week or so), we found there were already some projects that we needed to start working on, but we couldn't risk checking in code to the shipping version of the game. At that point we forked off the code in VSS to be both $/Goldsrc and /$Src. Over the next few years, we used these terms internally as "Goldsource" and "Source". At least initially, the Goldsrc branch of code referred to the codebase that was currently released, and Src referred to the next set of more risky technology that we were working on. When it came down to show Half-Life 2 for the first time at E3, it was part of our internal communication to refer to the "Source" engine vs. the "Goldsource" engine, and the name stuck.

Re:a fun bit of trivia

[nitehawk214]

They use Visual Source Safe?

WTF indeed

Re:a fun bit of trivia

[AndrewNeo]

They did in the Half-Life 1 era, they use Perforce now.

Re:a fun bit of trivia

[fo0bar]

Except according to this wikipedia entry it's called src/source because it was forked of the GoldSrc engine and they just shorten the name of the new dir to Src.

Close. The Half-Life code was maintained in the "Src" tree up until release, and then forked it off into "GoldSrc" after Half-Life went gold. "Src" then went on to mutate into the Half-Life 2 engine, and "Source". So "GoldSrc" actually came AFTER "Src", because "Src" has basically always been around.

Re:a fun bit of trivia

[aliquis]

Yeah, src made perfect sense for any source code obviously. Anyway, in released products the GoldSrc engine must have been the one in HF and would obviously not be called Src once they decided to make the release. But then I guess it's somewhat weird to call the rest Src just because they come from a more unstable branch since that could would probably move over to GoldSrc before any new release but whatever. Still seem to have been the case :)

I guess the only difference is if Valve actually called a product GoldSrc before they released Half-Life or if the engine in Half-Life only got called by that name after release since it was stored under that name, of which the later seem to be a more likely case which you pointed out.

Re:a fun bit of trivia

[LingNoi]

They're an all microsoft shop, Gabe used to work for Microsoft before Valve, hence why they only develop games for Microsoft platforms while the PS ports are subcontracted.

Also probably the reason why they got hacked in the first place.

What happens when other countries do that too ?

[unity100]

will you arrogant americans stomach your citizens being arrested in set traps worldwide ?

from top of my head, i know that one of the ex prime ministers of israel is gonna be arrested as soon as he sets foot on belgium soil.

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[Throtex]

We'll probably be too dumb to figure out where Belgium is and give up. /pandering

Besides, we have reputable citizens that are arrested abroad for far less insidious reasons. You don't need to lecture us; we know how it is.

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[Derkec]

If you are wanted for a crime in some country, you should avoid:
1) Going to that country
2) Going to countries with extradition agreements with that country

If you are dumb enough to go to the country, you deserve to be arrested.

How would I feel if someone tricked dumb American criminals into getting arrested? Pretty good. We could use less criminals on the streets. Feel free.

This isn't exactly a civil rights issue.

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[aliquis]

Or if for instance EULAs are decided to be valid in EU but not in USA. Just send all people over .. (Except it doesn't make sense since it would cost a lot of money to keep them imprisoned, guess we better fine them heavily instead.)

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[CorporateSuit]

will you arrogant americans stomach your citizens being arrested in set traps worldwide ?

A friend of mine is set to be drafted immediately into their military if he ever sets foot in Turkey, since he was born in a Turkish hospital. That said, do you think he's dumb enough to accept a job interview for a Turkish company? It doesn't matter how delicious it sounds, he's not biting.

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[Ant P.]

If you are dumb enough to go to the country, you deserve to be arrested.

Thankfully I'm smart enough never to set foot in the US. _Everyone_ there is a criminal according to their RIAA government!

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[puto]

Americans get worse treatment in other countries then visitors to the US do when they come here.

I can say this because I hold citizenship in three countries. And have lived in all three would rather tangle with the american law enforcement then the other two.

When Michael Fay was caned in Singapore for vandalism, the majority of the USA cheered, because he acted like an ass in another country, and he deserved what he got.

I had the misfortune of meeting the prick years later, and he almost got caned again with a pool cue.

But in the US there is a saying. IF you can't do the time, do'nt do the crime.

Nothing arrogant about the way they were caught.

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[moderatorrater]

You're seriously going to compare breaking a EULA to writing worms and infiltrating a large company's network and releasing the source code of one of their most lucrative pieces of software?

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[qbzzt]

will you arrogant americans stomach your citizens being arrested in set traps worldwide ?

As long as after the arrest they are treated no worse than citizens of the country where they got arrested, no problem.

If you get arrested in a foreign country, your consul can try to make sure you're not treated worse. There is no requirement to treat you better. US citizens have been arrested, jailed, and even executed in foreign countries.

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[iluvcapra]

We have the Hague Invasion Act for this sort of thing, silly.

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[Martin Blank]

i know that one of the ex prime ministers of israel is gonna be arrested as soon as he sets foot on belgium soil.

I'm sure many Belgians are eager to prosecute him, but putting Ariel Sharon on trial when he's incapable of mounting a defense just won't work. The man is in an apparently irreversible coma following a stroke nearly three years ago.

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not.

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[ShaunC]

500 megs. 10 gigs a month SSH Nekkid Chicks
http://www.myprohost.com/

Psst...Might want to renew that (or change the sig).

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[aliquis]

No, I didn't cared about the crime at all, I just wrote something. I doubt there would be many people tricked over if all crimes involved was stealing source code from a company on the other side of the sea.

(And breaking EULAs was lame enough / valid for plenty of people, at least if it would be a crime to accept without reading :D)

Bad example I guess.

Say use a car witch uses over 1 litre of gasoline / 10 km then.

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[tiananmen tank man]

Tell that to Omar Khadr, the Canadian citizen when aged 15 was captured by the US in Afganistan. He was no where near US soil and in a country that has no extradition agreements with the US.

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[gsn]

We could use less criminals on the streets.

Except he was not really on the streets here exactly now was he. And if you'd actually RTFA you'd realize he still isn't. He didn't fall for it. He has been further indicted in another case for developing malware. Currently, he is on probation for the Valve network hack in Germany and it isn't clear if he will be extradited or not. Extraditing him is a good way of doing it. Enticing him here with a job interview with an intent to arrest him reeks of entrapment.

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[Thing 1]

"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish hospital?"

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[CarbonShell]

I remember a story about a drunk US service member (while off duty) plowing his car into the car of a famous Romanian musician and killing him.

The US embassy flew him out of the country so he would not have to face charges.

The US has a well known double standard going on when it comes to crimes.

Most Americans can get by with anything or only face laughable charges (and be acquitted for most of them) for stuff they would be executed for in the US if the victims were Americans.

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[Anonymous Coward]

germany has an extradition treaty with the US. in fact only a small number of countries dont

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[Anonymous Coward]

But in the US there is a saying. IF you can't do the time, do'nt do the crime.

That's quite a silly saying... It suggests it's not really a problem that you commit a crime but that the real problem is that you try to avoid punishment for it...

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[Corporate Troll]

Most Americans can get by with anything or only face laughable charges (and be acquitted for most of them) for stuff they would be executed for in the US if the victims were Americans.

Reminds me of this.

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[Kirth Gersen]

Derkec (463377):

How would I feel if someone tricked dumb American criminals into getting arrested?

Yeah, but what if the *Iranians* tricked *President Bush* into going to Iran to accept a peace deal, and then stripped him naked, posed him humiliatingly, chained him to iron bars, and then slowly clubbed him to death? Would that be such a great idea?? ...Um, wait...

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, this is slightly different insofar as that the guy was already PROSECUTED AND SENTENCED in Germany.

Maybe he thought that things were settled after that - y'know, double jeopardy and all that. Not an unfair assumption, is it?

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except he was already sentenced for the crime by local law. I think there is a rule in the US were you cant sentenced for the same crime twice?

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[houghi]

So in what countries do I have the risk of being arrested? Unless they take me with them, the chances are pretty high that I do not even know that for the country I currently live in.

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[CyborgWarrior]

I call bullshit. How would you like it if a middle-eastern government tricked an American woman into going to their country because she slept with a couple of their citizens while the citizens were visiting the U.S.? Under their laws, this would be a very serious offense, perhaps punishable with death. If she got there and they executed her or stoned her, then it would be within their laws.

You speak of "criminals" as if it is some absolute that applies everywhere. The law is far more complex than that and is based extensively on what people in a particular area believe. So if somebody did this to a U.S. citizen, I would be royally pissed and want the U.S. to protect its citizens and get them back!

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are wanted for a crime in some country, you should avoid:
1) Going to that country
2) Going to countries with extradition agreements with that country

If you are dumb enough to go to the country, you deserve to be arrested.

Really?
If you do something that is completely legal in your current country, and travel to one where it isn't. Do you suddenly deserve to be arrested?

Or what if you are arrested for crimes by a country (while not being in it), taken to a place not in that country and not given any oppertunity to defend yourself. Still deveserve to be arrested?

This isn't exactly a civil rights issue.

I beg to differ, it is far as black and white as you think it is, take a look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights) for starters.

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[MikeBabcock]

And yet its a common attitude. I think it comes from a basic belief that the laws are not in fact just or right.

For example, why avoid speeding if you can afford the tickets? Quite a few people will speed despite the possible penalty knowing they can afford a small speeding ticket. Why? Because they don't honestly believe the speed they're travelling at is unsafe (and in many places I've been, the speed limits are ludicrously low for the roads in question).

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[Anonymous Coward]

For misdemeanor-class crimes, that is the attitude of most people I know. No one I know would justify serious crimes, murder, kidnapping, by this phrase. However, for things like jaywalking, 'borrowing' items from government jobs, etc., it's another story.

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[radl33t]

Yeah. All those arrested are guilty. Pile them off the streets and straight into jail. You fucking clown.

Re:What happens when other countries do that too ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he's just wrong. One should be a citizen of Turkey for that, which you don't get by default for borning in a turkish hospital.

Charged in Germany anyway

[Pinckney]

The article mentions that this trap failed. Apparently he suspected something.

Anyway, Gembe was sentenced to probation in Germany for the breach and leak. Interesting that the FBI apparently took this so much more seriously than the German courts.

Re:Charged in Germany anyway

[girlintraining]

Well, just before 09/11, the FBI retasked most of their anti-terror team to work on copyright. Says something about their priorities. Or rather, the priorities of those in charge of their budget.

Re:Charged in Germany anyway

[Spatial]

I don't see why it would warrant any further action. Apparently the guy didn't even damage anything. The source code got released to the public... Big deal?

Re:Charged in Germany anyway

[mrchaotica]

Analogously, they shouldn't bother going after attempted murderers because they didn't manage to kill their victim.

Right?

Re:Charged in Germany anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

The article mentions that this trap failed. Apparently he suspected something.

Anyway, Gembe was sentenced to probation in Germany for the breach and leak. Interesting that the FBI apparently took this so much more seriously than the German courts.

Interesting, maybe, but not surprising. We all know government is heavily leaned on by business in this country. "Intellectual property" has far greater weight here than elsewhere.

Remember that time the American MPAA pressured the Swedish government into raiding The Pirate Bay?

Our domestic trade organizations have a lot of political power.

Re:Charged in Germany anyway

[tkw954]

I wonder if something like the concept of double jeopardy applies here. Can he still be punished in the US for an act which was already punished in Germany?

Re:Charged in Germany anyway

[RiotingPacifist]

Or as GP was saying:

They shouldn't be going after attempted murderers in other countries that have already done time for their crimes, just because they've already done time for their crimes?

Re:Charged in Germany anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

I killed a homeless guy and after the crime, law enforcement found out that the homeless guy had no family, friends, or foes. Nobody even knew who the guy was! Why should I be prosecuted for killing him if no one is going to miss him anyways?!?

Re:Charged in Germany anyway

[genner]

Analogously, they shouldn't bother going after attempted murderers because they didn't manage to kill their victim.

Right?

Oblig...Side Show Bob quote

"Attempted murder, I ask you, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted physics?"

Re:Charged in Germany anyway

[ceoyoyo]

Industrial espionage is generally treated more seriously in the country where the victim is located.

Re:Charged in Germany anyway

[Pinckney]

I wonder if something like the concept of double jeopardy applies here. Can he still be punished in the US for an act which was already punished in Germany?

It is my understanding that you can be charged in both state and federal courts for the same crime without violating the Double Jeopardy clause, so I seriously doubt his conviction in Germany would be relevant to prosecution here.

Re:Charged in Germany anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, real interesting that the country of the victim is more interested in punishing a perp than the country of the perp.

Re:Charged in Germany anyway

[Pearson]

"The article mentions that this trap failed. Apparently he suspected something."

If I recall correctly, the German authorities got wind of what the feds were going to do and took the hacker into custody instead.

Re:Charged in Germany anyway

[Spatial]

Maybe if he was attempting to kill them with a nerf gun, it would analagous. I don't know the guy's intent.

Don't get the wrong idea. I didn't say he was innocent, I'm only saying probation was enough of a consequence for his actions.

Re:Charged in Germany anyway

[kabocox]

Anyway, Gembe was sentenced to probation in Germany for the breach and leak. Interesting that the FBI apparently took this so much more seriously than the German courts.

With all the other folks that I'd rather the FBI actually go after, they pic this guy! O.k. maybe its that he was an easy target that another police department already tracked down. I'd much rather them spend time/money on all those ID thefts and those massive data breaches from various companies of CC/personal info. Source code to a game? I could care less about and wouldn't really want them to spend much effort on it.

If I knew that they spent more effort looking for this guy than all those other guys, I'd really be upset. Actually, there is a part of me that wonders if the FBI has any legs to stand on. If the thing happened in Germany and the Germany government let the guy off for what ever reason, any other foreign government isn't magically allowed to arrest him and try him just because he is within their grounds now.

Re:Charged in Germany anyway

[elrous0]

You probably wouldn't feel that way if you had worked your ass off on something, only to have some little prick come along at the last minute and give away all of your hard-won tricks and secrets to everyone with an internet account.

Re:Charged in Germany anyway

[bonch]

Assuming you're correct since you don't cite a source, tackling organized piracy is a valid fight against what might be considered a form economic terrorism. I'm talking organized piracy rings, which is what they likely investigated.

As for who was in charge of their budget, if that was a dig at Republicans, may I remind you that 9/11 was first planned in 1998, and it was under Clinton that we got the DMCA in the first place?

myg0t

[Digitus1337]

The group named in the article is "myg0t" not "mygot." They developed some of the first hacks for Counter-Strike (the original). They became so well known in game as cheaters that a lot of servers are set to automatically kick any playing wearing their tag.

Re:myg0t

[Onymous Coward]

Fuckin' cheaters.

Re:myg0t

[Tains]

In the article they have actually typed "myg0t" but unfortunately their font makes it *look like* they've typed "mygot".

Re:myg0t

[gangien]

leave, leave now before the admin bans you!

Re:myg0t

[Anonymous Coward]

They also seem to take Valve doing anything personally. Strange to see "gamers" mindless attack someone that makes quality games, but then some people are just like that I suppose.

Thinking about it, its analagous to terrorism really. You have some silly prats that don't like what 98% of the rest of the relative world wants to do so they try to destroy it. Hopefully the majority of terrorist organizations end up with the same fate: slowly slide out of fashion until no one remembers who you are nor cares what you did while the world you rage against grows and evolves.

Re:myg0t

[strikethree]

They are not cheaters per se. Cheating is their modus operandi. They are griefers. Their goal is to get you as mad as possible. If they can empty out a server, they are happy. If they can make you angry, they have succeeded in their goals.

strike

How is this news?

[tergvelo]

The story is four years old. The only 'news' is the little blurb at the end of the article where it says the feds added his name to an old case.

Remember, this is supposed to be news for nerds.

~t

Note to self

[yo303]

Do not go somewhere where I'm wanted. Stay in the countries where there are NO warrants for my arrests.

Re:Note to self

[camperdave]

Sigh! I'm not wanted anywhere.

Re:Note to self

[RockWolf]

You're not trying hard enough.

Two minds

[Goldberg's Pants]

Wife thinks this is despicable.

I think it's hilarious.

In this job market

[KalvinB]

that's just cruel.

Re:In this job market

[Ethanol-fueled]

The dumbass got greedy. Instead of informing valve of the methods of his breach and then securing a high-paying job with them, dumbass done stole the source and then bragged about it and now he's probably being watched 24/7.

Re:In this job market

[dedazo]

Things like these are proof positive that intelligent != smart

Re:In this job market

[NoobixCube]

He'd still have been charged with some crime or other - unauthorised access to a "secure" computer system or something. People don't like to have their idiocy revealed to the world (I don't like the phrase "made to look like an idiot". People rarely need help with that). If someone reverse engineered Norton Antivirus to find it's a total sham, and then revealed as much to Norton, I doubt they'd be happy.

Re:In this job market

[Ravon Rodriguez]

In the navy, the people who run the nuclear reactors are called Nukes. It's also common knowledge in the navy that while the Nukes are some of the brightest minds in the military, they have an incredible lack of common sense. I mention this only because I think it parallels the rest of the world. intelligent != smart indeed.

Re:In this job market

[treeves]

Almost 50 years of operating many nuclear vessels with reactors with much higher power densities than civilian reactors all over the world and not one significant reactor incident would serve as contradictory evidence to your statement. Did some nuke piss you off in the past or do you just have an unusual definition of common sense?

Re:In this job market

[Ravon Rodriguez]

personal experience. I was a nuke.

Re:In this job market

[treeves]

Me too, but I didn't think *that* would convince anyone.
Out of curiosity, when and where were you a nuke?

deca post

[Frostalicious]

first deca post!

Ruh Roh

[mothore]

"And I would have gotten away with it to. If it weren't for you meddling federal agents and your dog..."

Ah, how we've grown

[IorDMUX]

I know it was a big deal six years ago, but, as Slashdot has grown, 1000 comments has ceased to be such a grand milestone. Just look at our big issues from the past month:

Press Favored Obama -- 1588 Comments
Obama Launches change.gov -- 1470 Comments
(Useful) Stupid UNIX Tricks -- 2356 Comments
Barack Obama Wins US Presidency -- 3705 Comments
Discuss the US Presidential Election -- 1912 Comments
Discuss "" and Health Care -- 1270 Comments
Discuss "" and The War -- 1211 Comments
Discuss "" and Education -- 1515 Comments

I... I seem to notice a theme...

Re:Ah, how we've grown

[Anonymous Coward]

So...you think this means people are finally realizing how crappy Digg is?

Re:Ah, how we've grown

[ceoyoyo]

The story is actually sixth biggest in visitors, not in comments. It doesn't even come close to making the top ten in terms of comments.

It's interesting the difference between the top commented stories and the top visited stories lists. The top visited are mostly tech stories. The top commented are mostly non-tech stories.

Re:Ah, how we've grown

[Philip Shaw]

I suspect it is partly related to the bikeshed problem, since everyone can post something vaguely sensible on a a non-tech story, but most people don't like getting modded down for posting something moronic when they don't know anything worthwhile.

OTOH, people who come here are mostly drawn by the tech aspect,so they are likely to read the comments in the hope of finding out something new and interesting.

Gabe Newell

[Anonymous Coward]

What I remember is Gabe Newell's pathetically lame excuse that the hacker had gotten in through an Outlook buffer overflow. He had no freakin' clue how it had happened; could have been the Pepsi guy, the creepy new intern, someone's pissed-off ex-girlfriend. But off went his mouth. Dork.

Re:Gabe Newell

[Nimey]

Yeah, the moron should have never put the HL2 source on a computer with an Internet connection, but he did.

Maybe it's just as well, though; HL2 might not have been as good without the delay.

cruel but apparently funny

[SmallFurryCreature]

Says a lot of about us really doesn't it.

Mind you, what would be worse in this job interview. Finding yourself handcuffed when signing the contract or getting a rejection letter. "Thank you for your intrest in joining our Federal "PitA" Program but at this time we feel we are not going to make use of your services, kind regards, FBI."

Re:cruel but apparently funny

[Anonymous Coward]

In the most basic sense, everything funny is cruel. Laughter is what humans do to help cope with pain. The more painful it is, the more we need to laugh.

Show me a joke that isn't a play on misunderstandings, loss, embarrassment, death, pain, or ridicule.

What's truly tragic, and therefore funny, is that people have so little understanding of how their own minds work.

thanks

[ClioCJS]

I shall consider your comment a personal favor to me by saving me the time of having to make it myself :)

Hmmm....so it would be like big Tobacco companies?

[thaig]

. . . except that the cowboy in the advert will be "doing a line" on horseback?

why can't you lie to catch criminals?

[circletimessquare]

it's not waterboarding

a society functions when its members obey simple moral codes. when you break those codes, you hurt society. you have given up your side of an obligation. therefore, society owes you no more obligation to honor the code of honorable treatment towards you anymore. you broke an agreement. why do you expect society to continue honoring its side of an agreement you ignored?

Re:why can't you lie to catch criminals?

[Anonymous Coward]

Decapitate all jaywalkers.

Re:why can't you lie to catch criminals?

[LingNoi]

He wasn't a criminal and they failed, he didn't go. RTFA.

He never stole the source code, others who figured out how he got into valve stole it.

Re:why can't you lie to catch criminals?

[Anonymous Coward]

You presume that said codes benefit society. I can think of a whole host of such codes that certainly do not benefit society.

An infinite number

[Anonymous Coward]

I can use information theory to prove that the answer is infinity...

Information content of library of congress: I(lib) = 1 bazillion bits.

Information content of one kilocomment: I(1kc) = 0 bits.

kilocomments in a Library of Congress = I(lib)/I(1kc) = 1 bazillion / 0 = infinity.

QED

Re:An infinite number

[Anonymous Coward]

anything divided by 0 is not infinity
you don't divide by 0, division is not applicable to 0 because 0 is not a number

Re:An infinite number

[brainiac ghost1991]

0 is a number, or at least it's a number that belongs to the integers, reals, and complex numbers, but not the naturals

Re:An infinite number

[masterzora]

Wow, just wow, this is epic fail (or troll, or both).

You are correct about things divided by zero not being infinity. However, we generally define "x/0" to be "lim_{h \rightarrow 0} x/h}" and, if x is a constant such as in the grandparent, this is infinity.

Secondly, 0 is a number, but it is one for which division is undefined. Unlike infinity, which is not a number, 0 is an element of R and very clearly has number-status.

Re:An infinite number

[Uber Banker]

What is a number? We have Real, Integers, etc. But what was a number 1000 years ago to someone for whom counting was about all numbers were useful? It was a set. 0 was an empty set. Babylonian mathematics had no symbol for 0, just a space, the Sanskrit word 0 was 'void' - going way back in India numbers were represented by dots within in a circle up to 10 (my old maths teacher always posited this was because we had 10 fingers).

When we speak about 0 and the very human nature of counting, I dispute that 0 is a number, simple an absence. When we look at number theory 0 has to be a number, when we delve into CS we get a crossover between something is counted as 0 (and therefore 0) or whether something is null/void, where it is empty but thousands of years ago would have been considered analogous with 0 - perhaps complimented with an adjective to suggest it was counted or absent, that I don't know.

Progression of education and science is a great thing.

Re:An infinite number

[Philip Shaw]

Oh, all right then, call it +NaN.

Should read your own link.

[Inominate]

Entrapment is not illegal(in the US), it's a defense strategy.

Now, just imagine

[Bearhouse]

A similar sting for Bin Laden.

I'll let you guys suggest drafts for the job advert.

Double Jeopardy

[Anonymous Coward]

Just how many times can one be convicted for one crime? Isn't there a law against this?

Re:Double Jeopardy

[RiotingPacifist]

If its a different country every time, id guess 203.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Just how many times can one be convicted for one crime? Isn't there a law against this?

As I read TFA they were going after him for a DIFFERENT crime they believe he ALSO participated in.

Now maybe they are more interested in catching him because they think he got off too lightly for the half-life code leak. But if they manage to bust and try him they'll be trying him on this OTHER crime.

Being convicted of one crime doesn't give you a free pass on as many others as you want to commit.

Apart from the HL2 Source Code

[Psychotria]

Apart from the HL2 source code being realease into the wild (which I agree was a big thing), the stuff this guy did to get the source code is probably a bigger deal. He compromised Valve's machines. He broke into their network. He installed keyloggers. He hijacked email accounts. He (maybe) initiated DoS attacks on their servers. Even if he did not steal and release the HL2 source code (trade secrets) what he did was pretty damn wrong... and illegal in most places of the world. The FBI, in my opinion, has every right to chase this guy (no, I do not live in the US). Chase the guy, catch him and let him rot in jail. Summary: the HL2 source code release, at this point in time, is not the big deal; it's all the other laws he broke.

Re:Apart from the HL2 Source Code

[Psychotria]

By the way. Many may know that I am an open source advocate (I own and manage two projects on sourceforge for a start, and prefer Linux over Windows, and I believe in free information and applications--especially bioinformatic related software and standards). But I still respect the right of others not to make their source code available. My above comment was in no way condoning the release of the HL2 source code. The source code was Valve's property and it is their right to keep it secret if they choose to do so.

Re:Apart from the HL2 Source Code

[Psychotria]

Repeat after me, virtual crime is virtual not real.

The guy did not commit a fscking "virtual crime". The crime was real. No matter what way you choose to spin it, the result is the same: the crime was a crime, a REAL crime, and that is that. The guy's crimes are not limited to the Valve/HL2 source episode either, but I do not want to get offtopic.

If you think that what he did was a "virtual crime", then please explain to me how it was virtual and not real. The only slippery slope, in my mind, is your distorted view of reality. How is stealing someone elses data just a "virtual" crime and not a real crime (ignoring all the other criminal activities he engaged in)?

Your stupid mantra that you suggest I repeat is the voice of an idiot. I choose not to follow the advice of the insane, immature or the ill-informed. Thanks for the suggestion though.

By the way, if you feel so strongly about your beliefs then I suggest you register an account and don't post anonomously. Anonymous posts are for those who are not confident at all in their ideas (or, I concede, there are legitimate reasons for remaining anonymous... but your post was not one of them... and I can only assume you're a troll or someone who is not confident enough to assert their beliefs and accept the consequences [either positive or negative]). Thanks

Re:Apart from the HL2 Source Code

[Anonymous Coward]

that's your opinion. everyone can have an opinion.
in mine, ith appens, i find stuff to enter in people's systems. i can't help myself, i love that. i don't do it when its obviously gonna be troubles tho. but its great fun. then it doesnt mean that you have to disclose their private stuff or even read it. So while legally you're not ok, morally you're ok. People should learn the diff between both.

if he didnt do that, he prolly didnt initiate any dos and stuff. its still wrong but its not as bad as you say. you sound like he should die for it.
well you should die for the candy you stole when you were 5 too in that case?

Valve should give him a medal

[imsabbel]

I mean, seriously.
Anybody remember that incident? Gave valve a golden excuse for delaying HL2.

It happened 6 weeks or so for the announced release data. And magically, after the leak they needed time to fix "security issues". For more than a fucking year. Because we all believe that the game really was finished at that point..

Re:Valve should give him a medal

[Anonymous Coward]

..or gave them the reason to change the source code significally that differs form the original leak to the extend that any exploit found could not be executed..and that imho belongs to 'security issue'

Re:Valve should give him a medal

[esocid]

and apparently cost them $250,000,000.00
I read the FBI transcript and the line that caught me was

Based on profits from its original version of the game, Valve software anticipated (and has now lost) $250,000,000.00 in sales revenue from HL2.

page 11.
I love the game, but give me a break, no one can prove that what happened caused Valve monetary loss.

Re:Valve should give him a medal

[Sockatume]

That's not how I remember it - they were pretty clear with the press that the game was nowhere near complete and would need another year. Seeing as anyone could look at the game at that stage and see how unfinished it was, for them to claim otherwise would've been preposterous.

Re:Valve should give him a medal

[hansamurai]

Ugh, I hate that kind of thinking. So they supposedly lost 250 million in sales in 2003 but easily recovered that (and more) ins 2004.

So, let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

He *stole* the source?
Is it me, or is anyone else just thinking: "lol"

Source is terrible, why would anyone actually want to steal it in the first place?

And why did FailBI waste precious time on such a stupid case?

Screw the HL2 source code...

[ldm]

... if this really is the guy that wrote Agobot, I'd like to see him behind bars. That has done far more damage to far more machines than simply stealing the HL2 source code; it made machines part of a huge DDoS network. God only knows what that's been used for, how many other people have had accounts compromised, etc.

Re:Screw the HL2 source code...

[Psychotria]

Yes, I believe he did write that piece of malware (Agobot). The guy seems to be a serial criminal (see also my comments above).

Re:Screw the HL2 source code...

[p0tat03]

Probation wasn't enough. This guy needs to be behind bars for a decade at least.

Gamestop taking pictures.

[tlaloc58]

Last night the at the midnight release of Wrath of the Lich King an employee took the picture of every single person who bought the game. I didn't ask why but it got uncomfortable. Just wondering if any had the same experience.

Re:Gamestop taking pictures.

[Anonymous Coward]

Last night the at the midnight release of Wrath of the Lich King an employee took the picture of every single person who bought the game. I didn't ask why but it got uncomfortable. Just wondering if any had the same experience.

Seriously? Weird. Maybe some kind of anti-fraud measure in case someone comes in and bitches that they didn't get their collector edition or that their key had been used already?

Re:Gamestop taking pictures.

[Anonymous Coward]

haha, those pictures are probley posted to a flickr group, for nerds who show up at midnight, for new game releases

Art of War

[causality]

From Art of War by Sun Tzu, Chapter 1:

18. All warfare is based on deception.

GameSpot covered this ages ago

[OtakuPersona]

I remember this story from GameSpot's "The Final Hours of Half-Life 2" at http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6112889/p-18.html and onwards.

Our tax dollars at work

[Orion Blastar]

Wasting billions to catch European Hackers who stole source code for a video game worth $2 million in Intellectual Property?

Since when is IP violations more important that catching all 20 million illegal aliens in the USA, or keeping track of 10 million pedophiles, or stopping Foreign Mafia Drug Lords from smuggling illegal drugs into the USA that funds terrorist networks?

If the federal government put that much effort into catching Osama bin Laden, we'd have caught him by now, he'd have his trial, and been sentenced to death or life in prison.

All the FBI had to do was work with INTERPOL and the UN and cite the European and International laws that got broken and schedule the local German government to arrest them and try them for IP theft. Wouldn't even cost 1 million dollars to do that. But we cannot have that, oh no, it makes way too much common sense and logic, and comes from the Internet Troll Orion Blastar therefore the other way is the right way to do things.

Re:Our tax dollars at work

[geekoid]

Billions?

Re:Our tax dollars at work

[hyades1]

Perhaps the FBI were forced to this extreme because after 8 years of the Bush administration's arrogance, stupidity and flat-out rudeness, an extradition request for anything less than murder would get a resounding "I got yer job interview right here!" from the Europeans.

Re:Our tax dollars at work

[ceoyoyo]

Wow. A bunch of e-mails and a 40 minute phone call... costing billions. I didn't realize it was so expensive to call Germany! They should have just flown there instead. Such fiscal irresponsibility!

Re:Our tax dollars at work

[Longwalker-MGO]

Facts and common sense are little inconveniences that can be readily ignored when attacking a political party on /., especially if they can fit President Bush into it.

Re:Our tax dollars at work

[Orion Blastar]

Don't forget buying up a big building and hiring "fake" employees and issuing "fake" stock to make it look like a real technology company.

Re:Our tax dollars at work

[ceoyoyo]

What do you mean? Valve contacted the guy. As Valve. They already have a big building, lots of real employees and real stock. Which is probably because they're a real technology company.

According to the article (and others on the subject) Valve was very upfront about being Valve.

!#@%! Metric

[Greyfox]

I'm from the USA. What's the conversion between kilocomments and shit-tons? Google conversions doesn't seem to have it. I find it odd that they will happily do furlongs per fortnight but don't have this...

Re:!#@%! Metric

[Idiomatick]

.5m per hourish? (Did it in his head)

Re:!#@%! Metric

[Greyfox]

According to google 1mph is 2688 furlongs per fortnight. So a furlong per fortnight is pretty damn slow.

Re:!#@%! Metric

[Idiomatick]

m/h = meters per hour != mph

Re:!#@%! Metric

[Poorcku]

According to Wikipedia 1 furlong / fortnight = 1cm/min. So yes, it is damn slow:)

Re:!#@%! Metric

[Dr_Barnowl]

I'm sorry, we only deal with conversions into metric fucktonnes here.

Re:!#@%! Metric

[borizz]

Of course it's slow. A fortnight is 14 days, and a furlong is 1/8th of a mile. Going some 200 meters in 14 days is slow.

Re:!#@%! Metric

[Missing_dc]

I think you math might need checking...
According to google 1mph is 2688 furlongs per fortnight. So a furlong per fortnight is pretty damn slow.
and
Of course it's slow. A fortnight is 14 days, and a furlong is 1/8th of a mile. Going some 200 meters in 14 days is slow.

so if a furlong is 1/8 mile we can divide the # of furlongs by 8 to get the miles, right?

so that is 2688/8 or 336 miles per fortnight or 24 miles a day.

Sure seems a hell of a lot faster than 14.286 Meters per day.

but IANAM, so I may be wrong.

Re:!#@%! Metric

[Missing_dc]

just to reverse the math to check the other way, 1mph * (# of hours in a day) = 24 miles traveled.

where the hell did you get 200 meters in 14 days? you would go further than that in 1 minute.

(1 miles = 1609 (and some change) meters / 60 = 268.17 meters per minute.

but again, IANAM

Re:!#@%! Metric

[philg8]

They were trying to figure out the rate of speed for "a furlong per fortnight," where a = 1. It was noted that 1mph (slower than walking) is still 2688 furlongs per fortnight (FpF), so 1 FpF must be extremely slow.

Re:!#@%! Metric

[nasch]

But a furlong per femtofortnight is damn fast.

Re:!#@%! Metric

[immcintosh]

Well, I tried "1 kilo comments in shit-tons" and got The Girl Who Ate Everything. Honestly I'm not really sure I want to know what Google was thinking. Then I tried it in "shit-tonnes" thinking maybe the metric system would allow for a more accurate conversion, but it seems that shit only comes in such quantities in America. Ah well, I guess we'll never know.

Go Precrime!

[CustomDesigned]

"The damage is already been done"

Yeah, why waste tax payers money on arresting criminals after the fact? Arresting them *before* the crime saves a ton of money and waste. Arresting criminals pre-crime is especially important in cases like this (or like murder) where the crime cannot be undone.

If Valve participated

[caitsith01]

...and this had worked, they might have had a massive civil lawsuit on their hands.

Unless they really, truly wanted to offer him a job.

He didn't commit any crime

[LingNoi]

They didn't arrest anyone, in fact if you RTFA you'd know he didn't commit any crime.

The source code leak, he only broke into valve and after boasting about it on irc others listening on the channel figured out how he got in and did the damage.

The botnet charges, he only wrote the botnet code, he didn't own the bot network, he didn't launch the DOS.

This is simply a case of the FBI having this guy in their targets and they're not letting him go be damned if he actually did anything wrong.

Re:He didn't commit any crime

[Walpurgiss]

Whether he took or leaked the code or not, just breaking into Valve would be an unauthorised intrusion, and a crime.

Re:He didn't commit any crime

[LingNoi]

I think whether he did or didn't steal property is actually quite important.

Do you think the FBI would be involved if they didn't want to arrest him for stealing million dollar IP?

Re:He didn't commit any crime

[Walpurgiss]

Maybe not, but I only wrote as to point out that the intrusion itself was a crime, and made no point of the relative severity if ip theft were included or not.

Op said no crime committed, and I just wanted to point out that it was still a crime.

Re:He didn't commit any crime

[LingNoi]

Indeed, it was poor writing on my part, I meant to say he didn't commit the crime everyone is accusing him of in this instance.

However in the case of the botnet suit, he didn't commit a crime, unless you count writing and distributing a botnet program, a crime.

Coca Farmers

[CustomDesigned]

Coca tea is natural and healthful, containing a tiny, tiny amount of cocaine. The original Coca-Cola was coca tea, cola, sugar, and carbonation. (The modern version is decocainized - similar to decaffeinating.) It is only because people refine the cocaine into a pure form that it becomes dangerously addictive. And then some criminally selfish people sell the cocaine on the street to extract money from people now controlled by the chemical.

IMO, they should decriminalize all "natural" drugs, from peyote to green mulberries to marijuana to coca leaf to opium to frogs, and keep the synthetic and refined stuff (LSD, meth, heroine, cocaine, etc) by prescription only (and recreation is not a reason for a prescription).

I know two people who blew their brains on drugs. The "drug" was nutmeg (in large doses). Our street is littered with mulberries (unripe mulberries are hallucinogenic). Marijuana grows on the police station lawn as a weed (Fairfax, VA). Attempting to control everyday natural products is just insane - and just leads to police arresting whomever they please.

"You are under arrest for possession of marijuana."
"Huh?"
[click][click]"Thought you could grow it in your front lawn without us noticing, did you?"
Thinks, "Damn, forgot the broadleaf killer again..."

So if Valve doesn't care if your TV is stolen

[unassimilatible]

Should the FBI not pursue the thief? Valve pays taxes, too.

I love how so many Slashdotters are absolutists about following the law - until someone they disagree with is protected by it.

Don't let your dogma run over your karma.

Xth most visited story on Slashdot

[eVirtue]

"6th most visited story". Do we get to see the list?
Sounds like the kind of thing that would be posted to digg at the moment.

Re:First You Fuckers!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

First fuck? How nice for you, did you last longer than 30 seconds or did you last the full minute?

choose carefully.

[steveaustin1971]

I think when they do this it is pretty much the same as when they call people up that have warrants, and they tell them they won a contest and they need to come and claim it, its sneaky but gets the job done. If someone who knows they have committed a crime against a foreign country and they are dumb enough to be baited there and arrested I think that is their choices that screwed them... I personally would know better than to walk right into a country that wants to prosecute me, especially these days.

Pour resources into that one.

[gnutoo]

it's an issue of punishing the guy for the computer tresspass [sic] etc..

We all know what a big issue that is to both the German and American public. I'm sure that everyone will sleep better at night knowing that game companies are being protected from evil trespass. Money well spent, bravo FBI.

This joke would be funny if it had not cost so much already.

Yeah, but...

[MindlessAutomata]

Sure, ok, the guy did a criminal thing.

But what if he didn't steal something? What if he committed some sort of anti-free speech law?

Imagine, for a second, you have a website that claims the holocaust wasn't real. Yeah yeah, stupid thing to claim, obviously, but within your rights and recognized as such in the USA. For the sake of sympathy imagine you're one of the David Cole-type holocaust deniers that is sincere and not motivated by anti-Semitism.

Imagine being tricked by Germany or Israel or some other government where that's a crime and being prosecuted there!

This makes me uncomfortable...

Re:Yeah, but...

[pclminion]

one of the David Cole-type holocaust deniers that is sincere and not motivated by anti-Semitism.

Why would an anti-Semite deny the holocaust? I would think they'd point at it and say "Hey, see this shit here? We need more of it."

Re:Yeah, but...

[russotto]

Why would an anti-Semite deny the holocaust? I would think they'd point at it and say "Hey, see this shit here? We need more of it."

Holocaust deniers aren't too swift on the logic front.

Re:Yeah, but...

[MindlessAutomata]

Actually, they tend to do both at the same time. I'm not joking. Often they cry out, "six million more!"

Actually, they might be doing it somewhat violently and somewhat sarcastically.

David Cole is a holocaust denier that actually has Jewish heritage and isn't motivated by some hatred of Jews. The vast majority of holocaust deniers, however, have ties to anti-semitism....

Not Strangely

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangely enough, for all the complaints about Dubya, Guantanamo et al, most of the far worse places get a free ride in the press.

It's not strange at all. The press in the US is mostly focused on us, because that's what we Americans care about. If our economy dips slightly it's front-page news. If the local sports team wins the series it's front-page news. If our president takes a dump on the Constitution then it's usually buried in the paper somewhere. But if there's nastiness in the Cote d'Ivoire then you'd better tune in to NPR because (almost) no one else is going to report it.

Yeah, I agree with your point that there are many places with nasty governments. Just don't be surprised that the press is more interested in what's going on here at home.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Wow what a lucky stiff

[SupremoMan]

Just imagine, they could have lured him to Guantanamo instead!

Re:Wow what a lucky stiff

[Anonymous Coward]

we should put your worthless ass there instead and let them ass rape you with an ax handle over and over again. fucking bitches like you are shit and we'd be better off if you'd just go the fuck away. go fucking do your little job and go straight home and watch tv every night and never talk to anyone. fucking shitheads like you are a big pain in the dick. you think you're funny but you're just a bitch. probably a faggot too.

The Urban Myth was wrong!

[Beelzebud]

I heard that this guy actually came over to the US for the interview and was busted. I've heard that same thing for years. I was rather surprised to read this and find out that he didn't fall for it.

Gun-Foot-*Bang*

[Anonymous Cowpat]

How many of us that have got our hands dirty with computers haven't at some time done something which is probably illegal in the US (libdvdcss, anyone?).
So now the nerd community has to treat any invitation for a job interview in the US as a potential FBI trap.

Is trying your very best to alienate a large chunk of the more intelligent population of the world all that clever?

And they didn't even get the guy - another nail in the coffin of the US economy for a payoff that wouldn't have been worth it even if they'd succeded.

Re:Gun-Foot-*Bang*

[bigmouth_strikes]

Playing with libdvdcss at home isn't exactly illegal in the US, unless you happen to live in the US. Hacking servers residing in the US, however, is.

Re:Gun-Foot-*Bang*

[Anonymous Cowpat]

the fact that it's not supposed to be illegal and clearly out of jurisdiction won't stop some hotshot busybody getting a sealed arrest warrant for you and picking you up when you enter the airport. You might be able to fight them off (but good luck with having charges sprung on you in a foreign legal system), but by that point you'll have been arrested and probably been deported, guilty or not.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

A Matter of Trust

[jeko]

Here's the issue -- We want to trust our law enforcement officers. We take their word above anyone else's in a court of law. We don't want to think of them as liars. I'm uncomfortable when I see stings like this because when I see it, it forces me to acknowledge that the police are liars -- and that gets worrisome fast. If they're willing to lie here, if they say the ends justify the means here, then where else are they willing to bend the truth? That's why juries originally rejected the use of undercover officers until TV made it seem ordinary.

Germans who made NASA mighta defected elsewhere...

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad we weren't in the habit of doing this back before we offered the German scientists to join our side after WWII ended, otherwise we might have lost them to the Russians.

A Cow Heard a Moose

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe you people would be debating the law on this. PC game hackers should be strung up by their toe-nails and slowly electrocuted till they bleed through their teeth. I don't care if he actually hacked the game or just stole source code. Those bastards should pay with their eye's and their fingers. They come in just under child molesters and murderers to me on the scumbag chart. I don't spend 2500 hours playing BF2 just to have a turd PID hack my username and screw with my stats, just because I pooned his ass! The list goes on and on; including in HL2!

Abuse of a slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice argument there. Should China be able to arrest you for picking your nose? No? Then no arrests should ever be made by anyone! Slippery slope, you know.

Kibicomment

[danwat1234]

Ahem Kilocomment=1,000 Kibicomment=1,024 And don't you dare type "Whoosh!", I know its a joke!

Points to consider

[jandersen]

On the surface this is a story about somebody that did something he shouldn't have and is punished for it, but I think there are several more important issues here that have nothing to do with the crime itself as such.

When a person is physcially in one country and commits an offence on a system in another country, who has jurisdiction? I probably lean most to the view that is the country where the offended system is; but there is a trend towards more delocalised systems - as evidenced by the question of where eg. Amazon or Google should pay their taxes. If it isn't clear for your payment of taxes, I can't see that it is any clearer for criminal jurisdiction; after all the criteria for legal proofs are stricter in the criminal court.

There is also the question of "symmetry" (the right word escapes me at the moment) - when the US feels somebody has committed a crime within their jurisdiction based on the above principle, shouldn't the principle apply the other way? The US wants the world to deliver the people they say are criminals to the US penal system, but it is very hard to get it to work the other way. Even UK, the "special ally", finds it hard to get a US citizen extradited - and even their own citizens, sometimes.

And then there is the ethics of the situation - is it acceptable to commit a crime, even a very small one, to catch a criminal? The "small crime" in this case is the fraudulent advertising of a non-existent job, it seems. The law - and certainly criminal law - is supposed to be the practical expression of our fundamental, ethical principles; it is illegal to steal, kill, swindle etc because everybody agrees that it is morally wrong, in essence. And as they say, two wrongs don't make a right; if you commit crimes to fight crime, you have tainted yourself and the whole system of justice - and where does the dividing line go? Why is it OK to commit fraud to catch a fairly insignificant hacker, but it isn't OK to take bribes? To my view you are either a criminal or not; and if you commit crimes, you are a criminal.

As far as I know this kind of thing is not accepted in any other Western country; the are not allowed to use even "mild deception", like a knowingly letting a suspect believe something that isn't true, if it is likely to influence their defence. Which is why you read them their rights when they are arrested, BTW.

Re:Points to consider

[russotto]

The US wants the world to deliver the people they say are criminals to the US penal system, but it is very hard to get it to work the other way. Even UK, the "special ally", finds it hard to get a US citizen extradited - and even their own citizens, sometimes.

This is what extradition treaties are for, to work out details like this (and BTW, if you represent a nation and are working on an extradition treaty with the US, make sure you specifically forbid the US from engaging in "extraordinary rendition", and specify that any violations shall be remedied by, in the least, repatriating the "rendered" suspect. It should go without saying but it doesn't)

However, there's no issue like that in this case. If someone in the US who has committed a crime in the UK travels there, the UK can arrest and try him and it's all perfectly legal regardless of whether the crime was extraditable or not.

As far as I know this kind of thing is not accepted in any other Western country; the are not allowed to use even "mild deception", like a knowingly letting a suspect believe something that isn't true, if it is likely to influence their defence. Which is why you read them their rights when they are arrested, BTW.

Eh? There's a country where the cops can't lie, at all, to suspects? Do you have any references to that?

In the US they can and do lie about almost anything; there's a few exceptions, like they can't have a prosecutor pretend to be a public defender (which has shown up on TV police procedurals, but I don't know if they've tried it in real life), and they can't threaten extrajudicial punishment to obtain a confession (which alas happens all the time, and the cops just deny it).

Plan unsuccessful...

[Robotron23]

Many posters here seem to be unaware of the actual history behind this fellow's arrest and trial. The guy was eventually tried in Germany during 2006.

From Wikipedia's Half Life 2 article:

"He was to be offered a flight to the USA and was to be arrested on arrival by the FBI. When the German government became aware of the plan, Gembe was arrested in Germany instead, and put on trial for the leak as well as other computer crimes in November 2006, such as the creation of Agobot, a highly successful trojan which harvested users' data.

"At the trial in November 2006 in Germany, Gembe was sentenced to two years' probation. In imposing the sentence, the judge took into account such factors as Gembe's difficult childhood and the fact that he was taking steps to improve his situation."

Considering he walked, that's pretty light as he was involved in authoring a hard hitting trojan and intruded on networks amongst other things. But still there we are, and I guess we enter the argument that punishments don't often fit crimes.

This is hacking?

[Venik]

"Gembe detailed how he'd cracked the company's network, first entering through an account that had no password, then ramping up to root access using remote CGI exploits and scanning software."

So the genius-sysadmin had an open account on the system, which was used by the hacker, who then scanned for vulnerabilities and found a cgi hole. Is this what they call hacking these days? Sounds to me that the person Valve should be after are the numbnuts in charge of network and server security.

Re:This is hacking?

[russotto]

So the genius-sysadmin had an open account on the system, which was used by the hacker, who then scanned for vulnerabilities and found a cgi hole. Is this what they call hacking these days? Sounds to me that the person Valve should be after are the numbnuts in charge of network and server security.

That is hacking, in the pejorative sense. Just like it's still breaking and entering if you leave a window open and a criminal reaches through the window to open the door, and still burglarly if he then clears all your valuables out.

Very few criminal hackers develop their own exploits. Relying on existing exploits and errors made by the other side doesn't make it "not hacking". It just makes it "easier hacking".

Re:This is hacking?

[argent]

Is this what they call hacking these days?

People who call themselves hackers because they know how to crack into computers are almost always using skript kiddie tricks like this. It's what they were doing in the '80s, except it was easier than. I *accidentally* found myself talking to the monitor on a PR1ME mainframe once when I hit ^C at the wrong time when logging on to an online service I had an account on.

Re:shouldn't be lagel

[mrmeval]

You can be tried and convicted of a Federal crime and then tried and convicted of a local State crime in the US and the supreme court says that is OK. They are two different sovereign jurisdictions but just try and claim State and not Federal citizenship and not pay taxes.

The supct is pushing to get it's ass handed to it. December 1 is not far away.

How had he committed a crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

He went to the US and did not commit any crime.

Next time Bush visits another country, arrest him and send him to the Hague. The US should have no trouble with that, surely!

Better still, have the Nobel Peace prize waiting for him. Really, all he has to do is come to Switzerland to collect...

i am going to say it is illigal

[mr_musan]

setting up a false company and inviting a known criminal into the country is illegal

also he did not technically commit a crime before he entered the states, so should of been barded entry by costumes if he was officially a wanted criminal and thus allowing him to enter and indeed granting him the visa to enter was illegal.

why we call it entrapment is it wasn't done though the formal extradition charges, something the usa uses to get people to it but won't allow its own people to be called away for charges, a double standard may not be illegal but it is certainly immoral.

but at the end of the day the guy was greedy and stupid if i thought life would be better in usa, the beer is too shit !

WTF

[GNUPublicLicense]

The FBI is loosing its time and money to track video game crackers?? Is that a joke?? Have they no task more important on their priority list??

so can i

[circletimessquare]

so can anyone

your point?

i didn't presume anything. you presumed that i was talking about all moral codes everywhere, as opposed to a few common sense ones. i'm not talking wearing white after labor day, i'm talking about things like robbing a bank. is robbing a bank something that is controversial? is there a morality where robbing banks is acceptable?

Wait! Wait!

[Provocateur]

Is the position still open?

Re:shouldn't be lagel

[Count Fenring]

Two different, overlapped jurisdictions, one of which has sovereignty over the other.

And assuming that you could actually stop partaking in federal benefits (such as protection by the Army, Navy, etc., or the highway system and all traffic benefits conveyed by it) then it might be a viable route to claim just state citizenship. Still a stupid route, but legally defensible.

Oblig. Portal

[ZarathustraDK]

"The jobe is a lie!"

Try reading, it helps.

[nobodyman]

What makes it fair for him to be charged twice for the same crime?

RTFA - he's not being charged twice for the same crime. He is being added as a defendant to another, seperate crime. What's unfair about being charged for every crime you commit?

Insightful repsonse:

[Gorimek]

I disagree: if all drugs were legal, the people currently selling them would move onto some other lucrative, illegal activity. For example, the Mafia didn't cease to exist when Prohibition ended and they couldn't run their speakeasys anymore; they just stepped up their extortion, money laundering, etc. to compensate.

So who would sell the drugs after legalization then??

I agree that to some extent today's drug dealers are in it because of the high risk/high reward aspect. But hardly all or even most of them. Also, there is not an infinite supply of lucrative and illegal activities. Once all victimless crimes have been legalized, few would be left.

Cry me a river

[GuloGulo]

You're saying the police shouldn't be able to coerce a suspect into a position where he could be apprehended?

Why not?

He did it, and there was nothing egregious about this.

It seems like your objection is based on the same silly "hacker worship" that occurs here so often.

It certainly isn't based on logic or reason.

so... the ploy failed?

[bl8n8r]

ftfa: "The gambit ultimately failed, and Axel "Ago" Gembe remained safely in Germany."

Gamespot website...

[d3ac0n]

Is apparently coded for IE only. I haven't seen a website that screwed up in a LONG, LONG time. Anyone got the text of the Gamespot article? It's unreadable in FF.

Nevermind...

[d3ac0n]

I turned off the page style and read it in plaintext. Very informative. Thanks!

Further (read: OLD) reading...

[TheBanzerfaust]

Jesus. Christ. http://www.gamespot.com/features/6112889/p-18.html

2000 - they tried to lure me there

[CHRONOSS2008]

2000 - they tried to lure me there

a week before i was to make my decision.
Two other russians went and got busted by them too.

Perhaps i should bring back the OLD School United Hackers Association and rebuild chapters like i had back then ( 8 countries )

How does one measure a "shitload" as Tb?

[zooblethorpe]

So is that 1024 or 1000 gigaturds? And do we add this to the list along with "Libraries of Congress" and "rods to the hogshead"?

Hmm, some places I've worked, this analogy is perfectly fitting for the "data" being passed around.

So 8 dingles makes 1 turd, ...

Cheers,

Re:How does one measure a "shitload" as Tb?

[dragonbutt]

So 8 dingles makes 1 turd, ...

no but 8 taco bell tacos do

Re:shouldn't be lagel

[mrmeval]

It can be argued that state citizenship is a fantasy and/or died with the 14th amendment. As best I can tell by light reading culturally the pre-civil war citizen saw themselves as state citizens. There may be a good historical legal review of this not written by a drooping conspiriakii nut but I'm not well versed in historical legal research. If anyone has such a document I can have great fun with it by baiting the conspiriakii nuts. ;)

I'll be honest...

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't even read your comment(tl;dr). I modded you down because of your sig:
Prediction: President Obama institutes the amero [amerocurrency.com] after 1 year in office.

Please take it off and replace it with something that isn't complete FUD. Yes, I will check.

Easy out

[jvkjvk]

One of the conditions I would make before journeying to the US in this type of case is a distribution license for the code I leaked.

This is not a criminal case, and if I can get a license from the copyright holders then there is no case at all.

True or not?

anonymous coward

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to point out that the creator of the Agobot (Ago) didn't actually steal the source. He simply wrote one of the tools used to steal the source. And by used I mean someone else used it to do so. Since the government doesn't want to admit they cannot find the actual criminal they decided to get someone else instead.

I remember when this first happened I was very unsurprised.

Not clear.

[Anonymous Coward]

So by your reasoning, you should be able to be imprisoned by the chinese government if you watch (by chinese government deemed) illegal content on a website that's hosted on a server in China. Even though the content of the website is perfectly legal in the country where you are browsing in?

It comes down to where the law judges that the acts in question were committed. In the case of the HL2 source code, evidently USA law considers computer security breaches to be a crime at the jurisdiction where the computer whose security is hosted. The question with your example, then, comes down to a point of detail in Chinese law: does Chinese law consider that the crime happens where the website is located, or where the user is located?

I could see this one easily going the latter way: is the crime to view forbidden content of any sort, through any medium, or is the crime specifically to view forbidden content in a publicly accessible website? If it's the former, I bet you the location of the crime is the location where the perpetrator views the content, and therefore, if you view forbidden content from outside China, you haven't violated Chinese laws. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong about this, given the state of censorship in China.

How close?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder, was the guy like this>close to taking the bait, and wised up at the last minute? Or did he realize all along they were trying to set him up, and he was just leading them along and laughing up his sleeve.