Slashdot Mirror
Are Programmers Responsible For the Actions of Their Clients?
Bobfrankly1 writes "Robert Stuart and his company Extensions Software are being charged by New York authorities, claiming he is promoting gambling in New York because of the actions of his clients. They are charging him after he rejected a plea agreement that would have him plead guilty to lesser charges, adding backdoors to his software, and using said backdoors to gather details on his clients and their customers." Another article on the case at Salon.
There's no need to elaborate, is there? The analogies you conjur up in your mind are sufficient to tell you just how stupid an idea this is.
Are plumbers responsible for the actions of their clients?
No. This is just as bullshit.
IMHO it all depends if the programmer knows that the client will use said feature/software for illicit activity. If the programmer doesn't know them he`s not to blame. Otherwise he is a partner and should be prosecuted as so, specially if the feature in question has the only possible purpose of illegal action.
This combination doesn`t exist: ETIs that know about humanity and want to see us dead. Otherwise we wouldn't exist.
Just their motions
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
This particular excerpt just helps to show how out of control things have gotten:
The case began in February 2011, when Stuart says he and his wife got the Kim Dotcom treatment after about 30 local Arizona law enforcement agents wearing SWAT gear and camouflage dress — some of them with bushes attached to their shoulders to blend into the woods around his house — descended on his home and threatened to send him and his wife to prison for 35 years if he didn’t cooperate.
The search warrant used in the raid said Stuart and his wife were engaged in money laundering, operating an illegal enterprise and engaging in the promotion of gambling. Stuart has tried to obtain a copy of the affidavit used to get the search warrant, but it’s currently sealed.
Why yes of course, 30 Arizona SWAT agents to take down a husband and wife accused of online crimes in New York. Sounds about right. At the very least, SWAT got the right address and didn't shoot anybody's dog.
Seems that the DAs office in NYC should be busy issuing Arrest Warrants for manufacturers of Guns, Knives, Automobiles, Hammers, Crowbars and Household Cleaning Products.
Ahh fuck it -- just arrest anyone who has ever made anything.
We can't be too sure.
I'm sure Duct Tape has been used in many abductions and murders.
And arrest everyone at Google too -- how many murder suspects have been found to have used their site to help them commit their crimes?
He did do something to stop the illegal behaviour: He didn't sell his software to them.
He should sue for copyright infringement.
Why don't the police go after Facebook? I'm sure many poker nights have been organised via the social networking site.
Gun manufacturers held responsible for how their clients use their guns.
The liberals up there in New York know this is a perfect test case to get all those Religious Right Republican biddys nodding their head yes along with them up until the time it's too late to say "wait! no!"
The real issue here is: Should software makers backdoor their programs for cops?
Stuart showed Wired a plea agreement signed by former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney James Meadows, which stated that he would plead guilty to second- and fourth-degree money laundering charges and assist the DA's investigations by, among other things, "aiding in the design of software used to obtain records, usernames, passwords, and other information stored on websites using" his company's software.
Illegal. Any evidence acquired by that software would not be usable in court.
Are gun makers responsible for how their guns are used? :)
just wait until we have the first fatalities with civilian UAVs or autonomous cars without permanent supervision. The weasels in management and politicians craving recognition will point all the way down to the poor soul who failed to write perfect code in too little time. This discussion is similar to the one about who is responsible for shootings - shooter or gun manufacturer. Only that at some point there will not be an identifiable person holding the gun, and still people get killed.
You know it's time for the next revolution when your rulers' names end with roman numerals.
It does mean the CIA is responsible for torture committed by 3rd-parties it transferred prisoners to, doesn't it ?
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Is MS responsible when someone uses Word to write a ransome note? No -- Is IBM partly responsible for how well some concentration camps were ran? Maybe
after all, both Google and Zynga do gambling too.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
They are if they sell them to north korea or Iran.
What point were you hoping to prove with that?
Asinine shit like this is why we need to maintain our right to trial by jury. If you're ever called to serve on a jury, please remember that when you do so, you are directly exercising the people's sovereign power to determine a just verdict of the case before you. A jury has the right to return a not guilty verdict if they so choose, even though the prosecutor and the judge will lie to you and tell you otherwise. Remember, you OUTRANK the entire government when you're a jury.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
They are being charged of "knowingly advanced and profited from unlawful gambling activity".
So if they made/sold the software for/to somebody who was going to use it for unlawful gambling *knowingly* then I guess the justice has a case against them.
On a knife analogy:
If I make and sell knives legally, then its hard to be accused when somebody uses them to commit illegal action.
On the other hand if I sell the knife somewhere where selling of knives is prohibited, or if I make it and sell it by order to a somebody who is going to use it illegally and I am aware of that at the time of making/selling, then I guess I am probably at wrong.
But here's somebody who is and wrote a comic book about the subject.
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=446
we hear all the time on slashdot about how science is a social good, how it should be supported by taxpayers dollars, how it benefits mankind, cures disease, etc etc etc.
but whenever some case like this comes up, of scientists or engineers being amoral and contributing to awful things (or atrocities), we hear over and over that science has no responsibility for its creations, engineers arent responsible for any use of their work, etc etc etc.
you cant have it both ways. either STEM is a social good, or STEM is neutral and not responsible for anything that happens.
Most of the 'great STEM' people, like Einstein, Sahkarov, Sagan, and many others, would argue that STEM people are not only responsible, they are the vanguard and should take the lead in examining the impact their work has on society. And they did that. The Bullet of the Atomic Scientists was the output of the leading STEM thinkers of the 20th century, and the Doomsday Clock was their way of trying to warn us about what is happening.
Of cousre, STEM can make you a lot of money, and why put your career in jeopardy, and your nice house, car, gaming rig, etc etc etc? Of course it's easier to simply argue away your conscience and, of course, something like 10% of people have no conscience ('sociopaths') so we will always have some issues in this regard.
But when enough people just stop caring, the sociopaths can take over.
Is this what law enforcement has come to? So what next, when someone bludgeons someone with a craftsman hammer they'll go after Sears? I think this is a case of laziness on the part of the DA and the detectives involved in the case.
Seriously? Who does it hurt?
Are gun makers responsible for how their guns are used? :)
Depends.
Are they knowingly sell them to someone who is going to commit a crime?
Do they sell them somewhere where selling guns is illegal?
If a programmer knowingly and willingly develops software with the intent for his clients to commit a crime... then absolutely they should be held liable as an accomplice to the crime. If they didn't intend for it to be used illgally then no they shouldn't, and they shouldn't be held liable for unintended downstream consequences. The problem is that it hard to prove one way or another, that's why we have a legal system to sort these things out and why we have a presumption of innocense until proven guilty.
Probably says it in hebrew or some other bloated confusing legal jargon in the employment agreement the programmer signed. And if not, then its probably somewhere in the severance-package agreement they signed in exchange for that extra two-months pay.
Word of caution to noobs who are only a few years out of college: This is the kinda crap they don't prepare you for when you get out into the real world. Beware the vaporware and fraud scams you might become the patsy for when things get legal.
Holy crap, the US is !@#$%^. What a mess you've made of yourselves.
FTA: "Stuart asserts that New York authorities only came after him because they wanted to use him as a conduit to uncover illegal gambling operations in that state. He says the New York district attorney’s office tried to strong-arm him into a plea agreement that would have had him hacking into the systems of his software clients in order to obtain the usernames and passwords of gamblers and their bookmakers to help authorities gather evidence of illegal gambling.
Holy crap! You guys have guns, yes? Why aren't you using the damned things? Your ballot box clearly isn't working. So, ...
[note, I'm not a gambler. I'm just astonished to see you people put up with this !@#$. Shoot the !@#$%^ already!]
I watch British/Euro Football (soccer, to you peons) and some of them are sponsored by betting agencies. They wear their sponsor's website on their jersies for all to see.
Yet your authoritays are extorting developers for plea deals ...
!@#$ your whole damned country! I promise right now, right here, I will NEVER set foot in your country willingly, nor do business with another USA-ian! !@#$ you all and everyone you know who choose to continue to live there! You're all insane for allowing !@#$ like this to happen.
I used to love you guys. Wow, how the mighty have fallen. :-P
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
I use them because a fire safe only protects against fires and not vicious psychopaths in camo with shotguns and rifles.
gun manufacturers are not responsible for users of there guns.
No, and there is actually a federal law about this.
And while we are asking, would you go after Ford to stop drunk drivers?
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Your strawman doesn't represent GP's logic because GP said that the programmer should be held responsible if he "knows that the client will use said feature/software for illicit activity." That's different than knowing that the software could be used for illegal activity, even for something so widely used that that knowledge also implies knowledge to a statistical certainty that some user, somewhere will eventually end up using for criminal activity.
And, frankly, it is pretty much the standard that, decades ago, when I worked in retail (at Radio Shack) we were trained to apply: if a customer told us something that made us believe they were going to use the product they were seeking to purchase for criminal activity, we shouldn't sell it to them, otherwise the we (the company and potentially the sales person) could be held culpable.
There's the case where a purchaser goes on to use a product illegally and the seller is innocent, and then there is a case where a criminal purpose known to both the seller and purchaser is the whole point of the sale. Obviously, the seller, when charged, has a vested interest in portraying the latter case as if it was the former; there's a reason we have trials with evidence rather than just deciding criminal cases based on public statements by either the prosecutor or the defendant.
the legal question "Is the programmer responsible for what their client does with the software they write?"
.. stop writing it.
the moral question "Should the programmer have written the software?"
Seriously, most of us work on rubbish that rips people off. The thin red line of 'legal' vs 'illegal' is just as much an abuse of law as what the government is doing. Don't want to get in trouble for writing dodgy software?
Are car designers responsible for drunk drivers?
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
The actual charge (rather than Stuart's characterization of it) is that Stuart and his employees "knowingly advanced and profited from unlawful gambling activity by engaging in bookmaking to the extent that they received and accepted in any one day more than five bets totaling more than five thousand dollars."
Not that they provided software which the purchaser of the software used (with or without their knowledge) to accept bets, but that Stuart and his employees actually received and accepted bets.
If Stuart is to be convicted, they will need to prove that charge to a jury.
Good opportunity to put in jail all weapon makers for multiple murders
If you can decode it, you will be able to read it, and you will have eternal bliss.
-9-9-9-du8a9iaiod99io3klk3k3kkfnksa;;a;a;;dfji oin fheofe;hiohojp;j oink oink e389rih3o2lwiohrwouihfld dogfart the.
Be sure to drink your Ovaltine?
I imagine a gun maker based in the UK would be in quite a bit of trouble if their guns started showing up in crimes, even if all their customers were abroad. Why make a product that is illegal in the country where you are making it.
That is all.
Yes, remember: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/watt/ ?
Too many fuckers running around thinking they have a right to tell everyone what they can do. Why are obsolete Christianity-based laws against gay marriage, prostitution, gambling, etc allowed to exist in the 21st century?
If you think that a Christianity based legal system is bad, then you have no clue what they'd be like if the laws were based on Islam.
Please understand that I'm not bashing Muslims or Islam, I'm just pointing out that in Muslim countries the penalties for these transgressions are far more severe than in in de facto Christian countries.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Too many fuckers running around thinking they have a right to tell everyone what they can do. Why are obsolete Christianity-based laws against
There are plenty of "fuckers" going around doing that based on all sorts of belief systems, be they religions, philosophies, ideologies, or what have you.
gay marriage
Of the countries around the world which recognize same-sex marriage, every single one of them is historically Christian. Note the map here.
prostitution
Not quite as overwhelming in this case, but the majority of the places where prostitution is illegal are countries whose primary religion is not Christianity.
gambling
You're probably confusing "Baptists" with "Christians" here. I'm not a theology major, but I don't recall anywhere in the Bible where gambling is forbidden. I do know that the official Catholic position is that gambling is fine as long as there's no cheating and as long as you don't do bad things because of the gambling, like letting your kids go hungry because you lost all your money and can't buy groceries. Did a quick search and the Evangelical Lutheran position is "...the Bible does not speak directly to gambling." As to the positions of other denominations, I don't know and I'll let someone else search if they care.
I know the "Christians are trying to spoil my fun!" vibe is strong, but you need to be a little less reflexive about it. Lots of people want to take away your fun. Consider this very secular guy's editorial advocating increased regulation of violent movies.
Also please note that I'm not suggesting my support for fun-restricting laws. A combined casino/brothel where the cocktail waitresses serve cocaine along with the drinks and the jackpot prize includes an AK-47 is just fine with me.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
Is anyone else concerned with the fact that the state of Ney York wanted a back door built into software to collect data? I expect that kind of behavior from Uncle Sam, but this seems pretty onerous for a state.
If programmers were responsible for misuse of their software, Microsoft would be out of business due to the number of people using windows to program exploits.
Your sig is quite insightful.
It's a product which could be used in an illegal way in the state of New York.
However It is explicitly illegal everywhere in the United States and most other countries to break into people's computer systems through a back door and steal their information. It is interesting that committing those crimes is what the NYDA tried to convince the accused to engage in. Even if the NYDA did not prosecute him for those criminal activities demanded by the NYDA, the Federal government may have potentially charged him later. Certainly he would have been wanted for crimes in other countries if he had carried out the demands of the NYDA. This whole thing feels very unethical, particularly the actions of the NY authorities.
I think the plea bargain agreement(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/12/Robert-Stuart_Plea-Agreement.pdf) should land Manhattan Assistant District Attorney James Meadows in Federal Jail.
He is asking the software vendor to commit theft on a large scale.
I'm not sure of the exact change, something like conspiracy to commit grand theft.
In that scenario, Taco Bell would get the death penalty.
... programmers could be held responsible for whatever it is that they explicitly designed the software to do, to the extent that fitness for a particular purpose is actually applicable. Other than that, no.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The 4 boxes of liberty are the Soap Box, Ballot Box, Jury Box, Ammo Box to be used in that order. Right now we're at the Jury box stage...
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
:)
Privacy is terrorism.
Are voters responsible for the people they elect?
.. says it all: that's what it is for.
Why the fuck do you think that the alternative to Christian-based laws is Sharia law? How about a rational, secular system?
Come over here and trying finding informed citizens who can actually make a difference. Almost everybody is polarized into the 'liberal' 'conservative' 'ultra liberal' and 'ultra conservative' camps, and practically speaking it amounts to us electing one of the same two groups every voting session without enough swing to even get goverment funding to a third party.
Practically speaking the system is broke, the citizens are broke, and the only kooks stupid enough to take up arms have been gunned down by the feds on trumped up real or imagined charges in order to ensure that nobody further would even consider doing the same in numbers sufficient to elicit change.
Hell go read up on the Native American's struggles post-reservation. Especially go look post-Casino legalization. The whole casino thing has basically just turned into a tax/legality dodge for the incumbent gambling companies who now 'manage' instead of owning the casinos on the reservations and get all the benefits of res status with none of the drawbacks (notably no federal benefits being required for employees, but the benefit of using 'foreign': read americans without needing to pay Social Security, Medicare, etc benefits, and not having to follow overtime laws.)
Much like has happened with outsourcing shit is getting worse, but there's not enough people inconvenienced seriously enough to raise a national level stink to get things changed.
Suitable captcha: Mythical.
Your sig is quite insightful.
I thought so. ACs can actually be useful for something. Of course, there's ACs, and then there's ACs. Some are worth more than others.
However, I'm considering changing it. "Look eye! Always look eye!" -- Mr. Miyagi; Karate Kid. That or "A man's a man who looks a man right between the eyes." -- Neill Young.
Decisions, decisions. :-P
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
They are, since bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity... And we *A-L-L* want to live in peace!
Software is a different story, though.
They're not responsible for how the guns are used in that situation; they're responsible for breaking an embargo on trade and arms.
Programmers would be responsible for the same crime in the same situation.
LOL. You can kick us later after we're down, but until then we still run the world so try harder to hide your jealousy.
The ballot box comes first and we're still on that stage. Congress currently reflects the values of the American people. We are legitimately divided and thus so is Congress. This is exactly as things should be. Our problems will be solved by the grind of elections.
If a plumber reasonably expects that the fruits of his labor will be used in a specific crime, then of course he assumes some complicity and responsibility for the crime. It's hard to imagine how that would happen to a plumber, but you are simply totally wrong to say that he would be inculpable.
Or, that may be a joke, playing off on my ("Holy !@#$!") inflamatory post. It's a fair cop.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
They would be under normal legal circumstances, but Congress specifically exempted them.
It is reprehensible for a government based on the rule of law to coerce a citizen to break the law.
However, if his software was open source, it would be that much harder for governments to play "cloak and dagger" with it.
Imagine if he made playing cards ...
You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle.
The 4 boxes of liberty are the Soap Box, Ballot Box, Jury Box, Ammo Box to be used in that order. Right now we're at the Jury box stage.
So, you're going to sue the US Gov. for redress? Methinks you underestimate the problem. Your government has been way out of control, and in the pocket of special interests, for decades now. They've only recently been capitalizing on their success. We've all been wondering when you guys are going to stand up on your hind legs and take it $thefuck back.
Konichiwa. Que pasa? Wakarimasu ka?
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
'Stuart showed Wired a plea agreement (.pdf) signed by former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney James Meadows, which stated that he would plead guilty to second- and fourth-degree money laundering charges and assist the DAâ(TM)s investigations by, among other things, âoeaiding in the design of software used to obtain records, usernames, passwords, and other information stored on websites usingâ his companyâ(TM)s software'.
AccountKiller
The ballot box comes first and we're still on that stage.
I'm not sure that's the wisest course. If a bully slaps you, do you slap him back? No, you hit him with a baseball bat! Didn't you guys learn anything from the Cold War?!? You don't negotiate with bullies, FFS!
Too bad your govt. has turned into a bully. Whattya gonna do about it, huh?
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
You can kick us later after we're down, but until then we still run the world so try harder to hide your jealousy.
You're ALREADY ON THE HIGHWAY TO HELL. You just haven't realized it yet. Enjoy the ride. Send us a postcard. Please try not to destroy the whole frigging world as you go down, thanks very much. Bye!!!!!!!!!
The Chinese appreciate what your lawyers and politicos have been up to, very *very* much. Bravo!
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Now grow some spine and tell that to North Korea or Iran.
I wonder why the feminists declares war on Islam, after all the religion discriminates women.
Oh wait, it is the liberal policy of only picking fights against the weak, and kowtow to those who are stronger, be it terrorists or nazis.
Are Politicians responsible for the actions of their constituents.
Yes.
In this case the entire population of the State of Connecticut can be exterminated with President Obama's Kill All order.
Go Obama ... GO GO GO.
But federal agents who knowingly and INTENTIONALLY sell guns illegally to mexican drug cartels are.
It's one thing to know that a product COULD be used illegally. It's quite another to design the product specifically for a purpose that's illegal, and to know that a specific partner/customer is almost certainly using it exclusively for illegal purposes.
I wrote bulk mailing software. I'm 100% certain that none of my customers use it for spamming because I'm responsible about how I market it and who I sell it to.
one issue with on line gambleing is the taxing and each state will want there cut as well as the fed.
Why the fuck do you think that the alternative to Christian-based laws is Sharia law? How about a rational, secular system?
Way to miss the point.
I'm not looking to live in a theocracy. I'm just saying that it's not the end of the world that you can't marry another dude. You want to bitch about real oppression and theocratic tyranny, look elsewhere because it ain't here.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I remember a kid in NYC with bad hair and a worse attitude who tried to claim he had no idea his packet sniffer was being used for packet sniffing, or why, when it was obvious that he did.
But this has exactly what to do with the story we're currently discussing...?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Let's pretend I'm a juror and the judge didn't already kick it out. I'm going to apply the "common sense" principle.
Was the developer a co-conspirator? OR
Was the developer merely grossly negligent? OR
Was the developer merely selling a lawful product to a customer which he had no legal obligation to monitor?
Non-computer example of co-conspirator:
Burglar walks into a hardware store and says "I need something to pick my neighbor's lock so I can steal his stuff when he's at work tomorrow. I can't pay you now but I'll give you have of his loot." "Sure, here's our lockpick set."
Non-computer example of being grossly negligent:
"Bar*HIC*keeper, can I have one for the *HIC*[stumbles and falls] road? [reaches into pocket to get car keys]?" "Sure, I'll put it on your tab."
So, basically, as a juror I'm going to ask:
* Is the programmer in cahoots with the other criminal?
* If not, is it reasonable for him to realize that his product will almost certainly be used to commit a crime AND that it almost certainly will not be put to any other use except perhaps "to prove the point" that it "can" be used for non-criminal purposes?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Anatawa wa cansu dekimas?
Goes on in indian software development all the time this building in of backdoors dosen't it? No one investigates that so whats the issue!
Please explain how a firearm manufacturer WOULD BE responsible under "normal legal circumstances"??? They are not selling their firearms to someone they KNOW will use it improperly.
By your reasoning, every vehicle manufacturer should be responsible if one of their vehicles were used to commit a crime (even drunk driving). Computer manufacturers are responsible for every illegal occurrance using a computer... Etc., ad nauseum.
you might as well wipe out all modern civilization and take us back to the time when we lived in caves and the most technological thing around is the stick someone should beat you with.
I cannot understand why people are so against personal responsibility. If someone abuses a tool, that someone should be punished. Not every person/company associated with every molecule of that tool! It just feeds into the "sue everyone until I don't have to work anymore" mentality that is crippling this Country.
to get back on topic, if this programmer KNEW that people were going to be using his product illegally, and i don't mean in a vague "OMG someone might use my tool illegally", then he could, possibly, be culpable. But if he created the tool to be used outside of NY, and, in fact, only sold it to people outside NY, then he has done what he can to abide by the laws. once the tool is sold, he no longer controls what is done with it.
But, hey, if you want to go with your idea, then I expect that you've already sold off or destroyed all your worldly stuff and can't read this comment anyway.
Damn, I'd go to that casino. I'd probably pass on the cocaine, but whatever floats someone elses boat is all good.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
Guns aren't illegal in the UK. There are rather strict laws over who can own them, what type of guns they can use and where they can be used, but they aren't outright illegal.
Some products may not be legal to sell in one jurisdiction, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily illegal to make it in that jurisdiction and sell it elsewhere.
If someone beats EZPass - arrest the programmer who built it.
The bottom line is ...this case is all about MONEY. The Government wants to take Stuart's money...and all the money of the people who are
using the software. The Government can allege in a complaint that the money is "criminal proceeds"---and money laundering statutes can allow
the Government to allege that any money that even came into contact with the criminal money should all go to the Government, and directly into
the coffers. (Gambling being a "victimless" crime)
This is the world of Forfeiture. To see the hundreds of pages of property seized by the Government that they want to keep, go to " Forfeiture.gov".
The Courts and the Government have vastly expanded the definition of "money laundering" to include just about any transaction.
Furthermore, 96% of people accused of a Federal Crime plead guilty rather than go face the "trial penalty" where everything is stacked against you.
I know. I have been in Stuart's shoes. In 2008, the Government seized numerous assets belonging to me, and accused my husband and I of
money laundering. I went to trial and was acquitted of all 12 counts against me. I'm sure the jury had no idea I could spend 10 or more years
in prison for each count for doing such every day things as buying a boat. (You probably think of money laundering as running cash thru
foreign accounts to hide it's illegal source--but no, it can be as simple as depositing a check into your own account, clearly in your name, and then buying something!) I was literally charged with four of the counts for buying a boat!
I was acquitted in 2011. It is now 2013, six calendar years after seizure. You would think I have my assets back, or that at least the constitution would require I have due process--but NO. I still have NOT had my day in court---even after being declared innocent...because the Government will do ANYTHING to keep my MONEY. This has all been so stressful, financially devastating and unfair. I could NEVER have imagined it would be possible in our country. BUT EXPECT TO SEE MORE OF IT as each Federal district competes to brag about how much money they bring in. Google "Forfeiture and (ANY state)" to see the big money that Governments want to take from citizens and corporations. It is a growth industry.
Turned into a bully? It enforces the law, if that's what you mean. Other than that it accurately reflects the voters which is all we can ask for in a democracy. At times when it goes beyond the law it is *always* validated by voters -- such torture, wireless wiretaps, illegal foreign wars, etc, all of which were very popular with voters.
"They are not selling their firearms to someone they KNOW will use it improperly."
I didn't keep reading after this because nothing else you could say could matter. That right there would be the deciding issue. Would a reasonable company know, or not? That's the legal standard and most of the legal experts expected gun makers to get hit the way tobacco makers got hit, because both of them do, in fact, know.
Think about it, if that liability wasn't real then gun makers wouldn't have lobbied Congress for a special law exempting them from exactly that liability.
On its face, he sold web-gambling software to foreign customers for use outside the United States.
Putting on my "If I was the juror" hat, the key to conviction would be how aware was he that his customers were taking bets from people in New York State, and if he was aware, was his not firing that customer gross negligence or actual co-conspiracy?
Unless there is a specific law that I am unaware of, it's perfectly legal for Americans to write computer code for foreign companies, even the use of that code by the customer for its intended purpose would be illegal if the company or its customers were in the United States. As a trivial example, I can create software for use in automobile engines that specifically allows pollution levels that are illegal in the United States then sell that software to car companies abroad for use in cars that will not be imported to America.
However, if I knowingly and actively help one of my customers fool EPA testing by detecting that the car is being used in what looks like an EPA test, it goes into "America mode" so it passes the test (with perhaps a loss in performance), then I'm a co-conspirator and I should expect to be arrested, charged, and convicted as soon as the feds wise up to what's going on.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I almost stopped reading the wiki when I read "Bush", this is typical Bush era BS law. This type of thing should have never been up for discussion much less law, once there's a law, it needs to be voted on every now and then, etc..., etc... it should be a basic manufacturer right. Good example with tobacco though, but there's some key differences, the laws around tobacco involved adding a warning, not marketing to kids in magazines, TV, etc..., and a higher tax if I recall, there was no actual restriction on how they operate, just negative stigma put around them to make buying cigs more of a pain in the ass, guns are already a pain in the ass to buy: I've never seen ads & you're requires to pass a stringent background check. Blaming a gun maker for their guns killing people = blaming the cigarette companies for lung cancer. The cigarette companies did get ruffled pretty good though: Can I sue big tobacco? , I think that most of this occurred because of the lack of warning on boxes / the cig companies not disclosing the health risks... you'd have to be stupid to not understand the pros/cons of guns, but I guess it is within consumer rage's legal reach to sue a gun company for something.
Is Ford or Budweiser responsible for drunk driving?
No. You are just ignoring the fact that our Talibani are relatively harmless at present. They don't seem so dangerous because they haven't had much chance to run amok. Given them free reign and it wouldn't be any better than a full on Islamic state.
Our Zealots seem relatively harmless precisely because we have a relatively secular state at this point.
You only see their true nature in little bits and pieces like when Tea Bagger senate candidates manage to get too chatty.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Turned into a bully? It enforces the law, if that's what you mean.
Hah. Currently, your precious Constitution is considered to be toilet paper (or little more than a speed bump) by your government, which is what your Founding Fathers warned you all about three centuries ago. Right?
Watching you guys these days is like watching a train wreck in super-slow-mo.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
You almost stopped reading after you read "Bush"? So, then, you make it all the way through my comment, which didn't mention Bush?
Anyway, at least we mostly agree on this:
"Blaming a gun maker for their guns killing people = blaming the cigarette companies for lung cancer."
Yes, those aren't exactly equivalent, but they are very similar, and courts did in fact blame cigarette companies for [some] lung cancer. To the extent that tobacco companies knew their products caused losses and failed to disclose, they were responsible for those losses. This was not a new legal theory invented for tobacco lawsuits, that's how it works for every product in the world -- except for guns, because they were exempted.
If they provide cars or alcohol to a person knowing that that person will drive drunk, then yes of course they are. It's hard to imagine how Budweiser could know at the time they distribute the alcohol, but it's pretty easy to see how a bartender might know. It's hard to imagine how Ford could know at the time they sell the car, but it's pretty easy to see how a friend might know when loaning out his keys. Bartenders and friends have been prosecuted successfully for a long time now.
If you know (or should have known), they you are complicit in a crime. The prosecution has the burden of showing that you knew, as the prosecution in this case will have the burden to show that the defendant knew his software would be used in New York. If they can do that, then he is guilty.
Yeah, again, wireless wiretapping is extremely popular among Americans, and is also (now) sanctioned by law. I don't endorse it, but it is what it is. In a democracy voters get the government they demand, and time after time they (we) demand a government which is dysfunctional and violates common decency. Is that "bullying"? Maybe, but it's voters bullying themselves so it's hard to get too bent out of shape about it.
It's really easy for us to laugh off petty insults from other countries; it's like the jester teasing the king. Call us back when you have enough political power for us to appoint an ambassador who isn't a big campaign donor.
Reading this article is kind of wild... I was approached to do a very similar project at around the time he would have written this software.
I refused it.
That decision cost me at the time. I nearly lost my job over it, annoyed everyone involved, and the company lost what had been a fairly profitable client (who referred it to us, and looked bad when I rejected it.)
He may not have known that he was likely to get into trouble over it, but that means he was not duly diligent. If I recall correctly the arguments against my stance that this was not legal were as follows:
1) Advertisements were running on TV for this type of gambling (I produced a letter the DOJ was circulating to advertisers at the time stating in no uncertain terms that they consider it illegal.)
2) It was not a US company, and it was ok to write it for them since they are not bound by US law (I argued that I am a US citizen, and am subject to US law regardless.)
3) The company would get into trouble, not me personally (I argued that this was possibly criminal, and they could pierce the veil over it.)
4) It was not my job to decide this, and I should basically just shut up and do it... or there would be consequences.
Everyone was very pushy about this. The direct payment would have been large, and it came with some ownership (likely a very substantial amount of money.) When I refused I got into a very serious argument with my boss.
This lasted about a week, and included having to join a couple of conference calls where I was yelled at for not being a team player, was told I was sabotaging the company, and that maybe I was not worth having around after all. I was also told that they would provide a poor reference if asked, and would make sure I lost the referring client (who I did lose over it.)
I still calmly refused, and eventually ended the conversations with "At the end of the day I either write this software or not. I will not, and you are now wasting your time in trying to change my mind."
I qualified my refusal with the conditions under which I would write it: which included either a license by a US based gaming commission which I believed covered what they wanted to do, or a letter of opinion from the DOJ that this did not violate the law. Neither of these applied, and so my refusal stood.
I am now very glad I decided not to do that project.
Currently I work as a CTO (obviously not at that company.) Product development is under my control, and a non-trivial part of the job is to consider the legal implications of what we do (legal usually reports to the CTO for a reason.)
Liability in software is the same as it is in any other industry, despite the fact that overhead is lower than most. If you produce a product you specifically know will be used for illegal purposes you can very much be held liable (in that case allowing US citizens to place bets on sporting events over the internet.)
If the primary use is legal and you make some effort to curtail illegal activity, it is generally not an issue. In this case he either knew or should have known that the primary use was not legal. His case is weak, and it likely would be better for him personally to take the plea bargain.
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity
It is indeed. Drop enough bombs and everybody's dead. Instant peace.
When people fuck, the outcome on a population scale is a supply of virgins.
And we *A-L-L* want to live in peace!
I don't. Wars cause great photography.
The EU drug companies that were selling the stuff to the US that was being used for executions got in trouble for it. You are responsible for what you agree to let the other party do with what you sell them.
China made a big deal about buying their aircraft carrier as some sort of tourist attraction/scrap/whatever that wasn't really to be an aircraft carrier. And now its an aircraft carrier. They went to that stink precisely because the company selling to them wouldn't have been allowed to do so if it was to be used as an aircraft carrier.
time after time they (we) demand a government which is dysfunctional and violates common decency. Is that "bullying"? Maybe, but it's voters bullying each other ...
FTFY. You're running on empty, digesting your own flesh to remain breathing. Your ribs are starting to show.
It's really easy for us to laugh off petty insults from other countries; it's like the jester teasing the king. Call us back when you have enough political power for us to appoint an ambassador who isn't a big campaign donor.
Keep him. We've no need for him. We've already got USTR Kirk screaming pathetic insults about us for no good reason, at the behest of your MafiAA. I don't have any need to see anyone immolate themself as the US is doing these days.
By the way, this isn't intended to be insulting. I'm just trying to report what I perceive looking in from outside. I used to admire the US and all it stood for. I'm sorry to see this happening to you in my lifetime.
Enjoy the ride, all the way down.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
If you actually read the article, you would see that he is claiming zero knowledge of any illegal use of his software in NY State or anywhere else. All of his sales were to clients not based in the USA, and furthermore he claims that he carefully checked to insure all his clients were legitimately operating in areas where such gambling is perfectly legal. Supposedly the software is not even usually sold directly to the entities taking bets, it's more of a middleman situation where clients running his software would in turn provide services to actual bookmaking/gambling operations - and that may be how he got into trouble, because he would have no way of knowing if his clients were in turn offering services to illegal operations. Of course, it's possible he knew all along who the final users were going to be, and if the prosecution can prove this he will likely be found guilty and rightfully so, but it doesn't sound like they are trying to make that case. If you believe this guy is telling the truth, it really does seem like a case where he is being held accountable for what other people did with his code without his knowledge. The interesting angle is that he was only charged after he refused to install secret backdoor code at the behest of the FBI, who wanted him to secretly record the names and addresses of all the gamblers ultimately placing bets processed with his software. If true, that is rather chilling indeed. Given that virtually all software can be used to facilitate criminal acts of one kind or another, who knows how many software writers have caved in to similar demands and already installed precisely this kind of secret backdoor code?
As our cross-pond spitting session closes I'd just like to say that I don't want you to take my insults seriously. Very few nations deserve heartfelt ridicule and I bet yours is not one of them. Sure, America is currently the biggest superpower but that doesn't mean we dislike foreigners or foreign nations. I enjoy sparring about international power and on you I used some hollow and unoriginal insults.
Personally I think America will continue to be the world's superpower for the rest of my natural lifetime, which should be forty or fifty more years. Things change and I expect that somehow we will solve our problems just like Europe will somehow solve theirs and China will probably have to deal with a bunch of problems that don't seem obvious now. So I don't think we're on our way down, but if we are then so be it, it's not like we do a stellar job running the world as it is.
Why not sue the government for enabeling TAX FRAUD?!
Without tax laws, there could be no tax fraud.
THINK! It's patriotic
No. You are just ignoring the fact that our Talibani are relatively harmless at present.
Please, enough with the hyperbole. Even our most disgusting Fred Phelps-types have never been out there beheading people for non-belief.
Our Zealots seem relatively harmless precisely because we have a relatively secular state at this point.
A nation where secular humanists have to pretend to be Christians in order to get elected?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I know. This never happened. You don't exist.
You mean this isn't the way it works?