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.

Comments

No.

[Threni]

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.

Re:No.

[NFN_NLN]

I found a similar story on another obscure website:

"An anonymous reader points out the case of Saeed Malekpour, an Iranian-born permanent resident of Canada who worked as a web developer. In 2008, during a visit to Iran, Malekpour was arrested and detained by Iranian authorities on charges that he designed and moderated "adult content websites." In 2009, he was sentenced to death for "acting against the national security, insulting and desecrating the principles of Islam, and agitating the public mind." Malekpour wrote photo-uploading software, and in a letter he sent from prison, he said it was used by porn sites without his knowledge."

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/22/0354253/web-developer-sentenced-to-death-in-iran

Re:No.

[idobi]

Let's sue Microsoft for Excel for enabling embezzlement

Re:No.

[Shoten]

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.

Actually, yes...if you know in advance that what you're doing is actually facilitating a criminal act. It's called "being an accessory," or even falls under conspiracy, given the level of involvement needed to write software specifically to do certain things. Here's the difference:

1: Being a gunsmith, making a gun, and putting it up for sale in accordance with all laws. Some guy you don't know buys it and then uses it to commit murder; the first time you learn of his intent to do so is when you find out that he did it. Okay, you aren't accountable.

2: Being a gunsmith, and being approached by someone to make him a firearm with no serial number that wouldn't be traceable because it'd have no records. He pays you in cash, and tells you he intends to commit murder with it when you give it to him. Yeah, you're responsible in that case.

Gambling in New York isn't legal. Writing software to be used in New York for gambling is therefore committing a crime. Slashdot just gave this a stupid title, is all..the crux of the question is not whether "programmers are responsible for the actions of their clients," but whether programmers who knowingly and willfully contribute to the commission of a crime can be prosecuted. And they can.

Re:No.

[anagama]

Why not address the larger issue of why the government has to be everyone's mom? People will gamble. Some people enjoy it. Some people get hurt. The identical thing can be said for anything: mountain biking, ice cream, jogging, or french fries.

How's the saying go? Canada got the French. Australia got the cons. And we got the Puritans.

fucking puritans.

Re:No.

[russotto]

Gambling in New York isn't legal. Writing software to be used in New York for gambling is therefore committing a crime.

This does not follow. It's not particularly unusual to build something "for export only" -- to use a car analogy, cars which aren't street legal in the US but are street legal in other countries. And if you prefer booze, the Jack Daniels distillery is located in a county where it is unlawful to sell alcohol.

Perhaps

[CmdrEdem]

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.

Re:No

[LordLucless]

Just their motions

Real reactionary

[DarthBling]

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.

Re:Real reactionary

[Intrepid imaginaut]

The plea bargain is the most disturbing element for me. Apparently anyone can be charged with anything, and then forced to do whatever in exchange for a plea bargain for lesser punishment. The US is a very dangerous place to be right now.

Wrong headline

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:No

[Synerg1y]

Are gun makers responsible for how their guns are used? :)

Jurors, do your duty.

[jcr]

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 actual charge

[DragonWriter]

Good question, did he or did he not know what it will be used for?Or should I put, are there any evidence that he did know?

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.

Send the DA to Jail

[FoolishBluntman]

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.