Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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!
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.
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.
"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
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?
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
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.