Slashdot Mirror
Call Yourself a Hacker, Lose Your 4th Amendment Rights
An anonymous reader writes "As described on the DigitalBond blog, a security researcher was subjected to a court ordered search in which a lack of pre-notification was premised on his self description as a 'hacker.' From the court order, 'The tipping point for the Court comes from evidence that the defendants – in their own words – are hackers. By labeling themselves this way, they have essentially announced that they have the necessary computer skills and intent to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their role in that act.'"
Aside from the obvious abuse of power, there's this: http://www.stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html
I thought it was about a reasonable suspicion of committing a crime, that sort of thing?
If I call myself a sex god do they do diligence on that one too?
and this is my manifesto...
So a title implies intent?! This looks like the steepest slope coated in vasteline ever.
well that's the thing. they're(state) claiming that if you're labeled or label yourself as hacker then that's reasonable suspicion reason for you to be a malicious computer criminal.
sooooo... are they gonna go all SWAT on hackerspaces?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
The tipping point for the Court comes from evidence that the defendants â" in their own words â" are hackers. By labeling themselves this way, they have essentially announced that they have the necessary computer skills and intent to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their role in that act.
Sounds reasonable. Anyone with an intermediate understanding of computers and the internet would be able to publish something silently. Create an account with a seedbox, upload file, upload torrent to thepiratebay.sx.
It looks like all they did with the "hacker" identification is determine that they were intermediate level with computers and networking.
Judging from the summary, this is a standard courtroom procedure, and the submitter is trying to sensationalize it by leaving out all of the other evidence.
Then I would also assume that a Court employee would be preoccupied with, um, fairness and justice. And obviously wrong both times.
The post here is entirely too alarmist. Essentially, the guy stole his employer's software because he had a philosophical difference with how the company should be handling the source code and went to offer it himself.
In short, this isn't a "violation of the 4th amendment" so much as it is an excuse to try and get access to the guy's hard drive and recover stolen assets.
And yes, I do believe he stole the code.
Since when does hacker mean someone who must "have the necessary computer skills and intent to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their role in that act." Anyone who owns a raspberry pi or jailbreaks their phone can be called a hacker according to these people, and that does not imply the above!
Twinstiq, game news
10 echo 'Hello world'
20 goto 10
to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their role in that act.
Public? Slashdot. Check
Concealed? Anonymous coward.. (am now) Check.
Simultaneous? With one fell swoop of the submit button.
Big damn hackers...
Ain't we just.
In the new world, language is defined by the media. As absurd as it is, the media now effectively controls the "evolution" of language (or should I say "devolution"). When people see it on TV, they repeat it. The few who don't repeat it, or actually question it, are the minority. These individuals have no choice but to make themselves aware of the change -- as ugly as it may be -- and adjust their lives to accomodate it. The long-lost term "hacker" is one of many examples, but one which is particularly dangerous to those who refuse to acknowledge the rule of mass media.
First, they came for the Americans and I did nothing because I'm not American...
Computer tinkerer. I tinker with computers. At all levels. From the soldering iron to that data you keep in your database behind your website. Pretty much like hackers, but with a different bias.
you cant premise american society on a steady diet of sensationalized tabloid journalism and pop culture television without conceding the traditional and correct definition of the word 'hacker' will have been distorted to perversion. Because the word is used so frequently as to have become ubiquitous, and its meaning has been so broadened in order to sell movies and television programs, its only natural to assume a judge concluding, 'of course i know what a hacker is' would fail to realize she was taught by Hollywood, the writer of fiction, what the definition was.
this should be ridiculously easy to contest. its time to find an attorney and for lack of a better description, expose the hack used by the litigious corporation to warrant a cease and desist order against this young man. perhaps they'll teach the meaning of FUD along the way.
Good people go to bed earlier.
It's more like if you claimed to be a professional killer and later claimed you kill deer.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
The full court decision is here. (pdf)
Referring to ones self as something, sadly doesn't make it so.
Whats happening is the court is sending an order to image his hard drive, turn that image over to the court (without examining the data on it first), and order the defendant not to wipe his hard drive pending further investigation in the case. Of course the court has no proof that the "hacker" is going to delete the data on his hard drive should he be given warning, but it does have a suspicion that it might.
And he didn't "lose [his] 4th Amendment rights", because the 4th Amendment specifies "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" which is exactly, letter for letter, what has happened (complete with sworn affidavit). This whole thing is a non-story: a plaintiff brought a suit before the court, the court decided to issue a temporary restraining order following due process in order to ensure evidence isn't destroyed. Maybe you might argue the court didn't really have reasonable suspicion, but thats for the defendant's lawyer to argue.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
And any biologist has the knowledge to release botulism in a concealed manner.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
"Most people have the intelligence to understand plain English" I wish that were a true statement, but it is not.
Call me a Polack. ?!?!
actually yes, the next logical step from this is to start searching concerned citizens and political activists who are not allied with either power party. gun activists who talk about private guns being needed to keep the power balance between government and citizens are also obviously planning an armed uprising. and if they got nothing to hide then why would they object to such searches to protect them and their fellow men from TERRORISTS???(of course such searches would also need to be done without warning by armed men who don't announce their presence)
uh and if they taught civics then they would need to answer pesky questions.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Battelle has made a major mistake here. INL's ICS testing labs (and ICS-CERT) require extremely forward-thinking, highly skilled security professionals with a very narrow subset of specialties. Which are exactly the sorts of people to be raging, rippingly pissed off at reading this. They approached me about a position about 2 months ago; oh, if only they approached me tomorrow. I'd be polite about it, but I would also tell them that there was no way I would consider a position with them, if they truly think that researchers are criminals, even though they would hire such. And if they don't think that researchers are criminals, they have no right to treat them as such.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
It's not like this is not found in other areas though. For example, "gang" is now a magic word which means criminal. Back in the day, "gang" just meant a bunch of friends... well, not always but sometimes. "Our Gang" was not quite a 'gang' by contemporary definitions. But it strikes me that in the legal sense the implication by a word can actually lead to all sorts of legal and real mayhem. This is why motorcycle clubs are now called clubs. Because to be identified as a gang would mean they lose all sorts of things. 'Hacker' doesn't and shouldn't mean what THEY think it means. The entertainment/media industries have managed to take a good word and made it bad. The [blind] justice system has taken Hollywood's notion of hacker and applied it to people inappropriately. (And why not, they believe just about everything the MPAA/RIAA has to say.)
So now we're on notice. We need a new word. The old word is useless. The word "Hacker" has gone "gay."
There is a difference between written and spoken word. Learn it. Live it. Love it. Or get the fuck out.
Quoted by the OP from source material:
The Court has struggled over the issue of allowing the copying of the hard drive. This is a serious invasion of privacy and is certainly not a standard remedy, as the discussion of the case law above demonstrates. The tipping point for the Court comes from evidence that the defendants – in their own words – are hackers. By labeling themselves this way, they have essentially announced that they have the necessary computer skills and intent to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their role in that act. (underline added) And concealment likely involves the destruction of evidence on the hard drive of Thuen’s computer. For these reasons, the Court finds this is one of the very rare cases that justifies seizure and copying of the hard drive.
The thing I'm very uncomfortable with is the conflation of "capability" with "intent". There are many things I can do that I don't want to do, because I'm basically an ethical person and I respect other people's rights and property, and if there's one thing I'm touchy as hell about, it's the assumption that people who are able to do things outside what people of average intelligence consider "normal" skills are inherently dangerous and/or criminal if their knowledge, skills, or abilities aren't somehow sanctioned by an "authority" like a higher education institution. I'm very much a hacker in the sense of having fairly extensive self-education and hands-on experience with technology outside of the sanctioned channels. I'm not a "hacker" in the sense in which the court understands the term. (And there's a whole other rant there, in terms of how the word's meaning has been loaded with negative connotations it really shouldn't have.) In this case, the court has taken the word out of the context and applied a meaning to it that I'm sure the original author did not intend, as an excuse to sidestep 4th Amendment protections. That's troubling, to say the least.
Just like how there are men who say they're awesome in bed but finish and fall asleep in five minutes, or there are plenty of bearded men who call themselves pretty princesses, just because you say you're a hacker doesn't mean you really are.
I called myself a hacker in the mid-1980s when I was on an Apple //e with no modem, simply because I could use a sector editor and had friends with copied software. Had nothing to do with bad intentions or cyber-prowess, pretty much interchangeable with "computer geek" and doesn't mean more than "I am slightly above the local median in comprehension."
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
In fact, you should be shitting bricks right now. If US have no problem spying foreing presidents communications or even deviating official presidential planes, you think it will care a lot about the diplomatics implications of sending a drone to you or your approximate neighbourhood?
The new company he works for actually released it already. It's been on github for the last 7 months. If there was a question of ownership on the code, why it couldn't be figured out from comparing the released version of Visdom to the internal version of Sophia to see if any code was stolen is left up to the reader.
The tipping point for the Court comes from evidence that the defendants Ã" in their own words Ã" are hackers. By labeling themselves this way, they have essentially announced that they have the necessary computer skills and intent to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their role in that act.
Sounds reasonable.
Does it? Remember that time you used wd-40 and duct tape to fix that little problem with your homes front door?
Implementing a fix in a manor not intended by the original manufacturer is the definition of hacking, thus you sir are a hacker.
Please do elaborate further how it sounds reasonable that you have sacrificed all of your constitutionally protected rights simply because you used a roll of duct tape?
Even if you personally are willing to give up all your constitutionally protected rights for using duct tape, I seriously question how and even IF your choice should in anyway apply to me.
I realize the both of us have already broken 4 federal laws - assuming you haven't yet gone outside today either - but none the less I see no argument why that should become yet another federal crime, simply because I have a roll of duct tape in the house.
The final bit of irony regarding your point of view, is that possession or use of duct tape requires NO computer skills what so ever, let alone the specific computer skills of "turning computer on" or "writing code" to release publicly or privately.
Can you elaborate further on these inconsistencies between your point of view and reality?
...A Computer literate person is a criminal, and possibly a terrorist.
Yes, because due process is less important than the individual interests of people or businesses.
Clue-stick: by setting aside constitutionally mandated limits on government behavior, we are and have been endangering the very existence of the USA. We're kind of at a critical moment in US history. Do we step back from the evil ways of business, money and influence over government or do we swing back in favor of the words in the constitution which were written specifically to prevent exactly what is happening today?
How about 'wizard' or 'guru' identifications?
When asked about his hobbies and interests he replied "hacking" with a smile. Then explained that it was this type of hacking
Bullshit. Read the damn article.
The guy is being sued by his former employer, who claims he took their code and plans to offer it as open source (copyright infringement). The plaintiff contends that there is crucial evidence on the defendants computer. The court ordered (as is usual in such cases) that an image be made of the defendants computer in order to preserve any evidence that is there. The computer is to be returned to the defendant as soon as the image is made, in the same condition as before the computer was taken. Nobody can look at the image until further court orders allow it.
So where does 'being a hacker' enter the picture? The plaintiff asked the court for a temporary restraining order without notification to the defendant. The courts rules state that a temporary restraining order can only be granted if there are specific facts that show irreperable harm will occur before the opposing party can present his position in court. In this case, the plaintiff is claiming that the defendant will have the ability to destroy the evidence before the plaintiff can present their case. The court used the 'we are hackers' statement as evidence that the defendant probably had the means and knowledge to destroy the evidence. Thus, the restraining order was granted.
It is not a criminal case. No 4th amendment rights were violated.
Just as Hacking has ethical (Whitehat and Hardware) as well as unethical (Blackhats and all variations) it seems to me that Lawyers likely come in ethical and non-ethical varieties.
After a Lawyer demonstrates unethical behavior there needs to be a monetary bounty placed on them like fugitives. Clearly there are stupid and uneducated judges and unfortunately there are no laws against being stupid. But it takes an unethical lawyer to take advantage of such a judge. I believe cleansing fire should be applied to such an unethical person.
If it was good enough for Witches in the 1600-1700 its good enough for dirty lawyers.
So what does this mean for white hat hackers and Certified Ethical Hackers
Hey, wait a minute. Hacking is something you do to hardware, you software freaks need to get you own term!!!!! ;-)
The question you need to ask yourself... are you worth the ~$80,000 to blow you to hell?
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
The problem is that the court uses the dictionary definition of hacker: "computers : a person who secretly gets access to a computer system in order to get information, cause damage, etc. : a person who hacks into a computer system". Online (or at least in sites like Slashdot) we use the informal definition; "Someone who is good at programming." Apparently, this second definition does not appear in a Merriam-Webster dictionary. Dictionaries do, however, offer a secondary definition of the word: ": a person who plays a sport badly" To escape legal persecution, everyone on Slashdot should be prepared to testify that they're really bad at baseball.
If you read TFA, if you are technically capable of wiping a computer you have no 4th amendment rights.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I can't find the link, but some time ago Slashdot ran a story about some poor kid who was expelled for bringing a copy of a Linux distribution to school - I think perhaps he was distributing them. The administration used it to label him a dangerous hacker and kicked him out. I thought that was rock bottom.
I call myself a hacker, yet I would never use a computer for malicious purposes. I'll be happy to fix one though, or diagnose your network problem, maybe even set you up with a nice hassle free FreeBSD file server. The only time I ever broke into a computer it was be accident and it was mine. However, if my government wants to turn against me over an ambiguous label and mark me their enemy - then I will be their enemy. First the United States government turned the world against them, now they are chipping away at their very own people.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
That, to me, is what they should have gone after.
Why? Being a hacker does not necessarily imply that you do illegal things.
If they committed a crime, and said they don't want to stop, then obviously this is a real sticking point here!
Not wanting to stop doing something is not the same as planning to do it.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Why not? Money is printed, the manufacturers contractors are more than happy to get it and give something back to the legislators that approve those measures. If they could waste 77 billons in jets that never went to war, $88k is just pocket change. They don't need to go after every and each one, just set some precedents.
I feel sorry for those newfangled lumberjacks trying to get a leg up in the digital marketing world. They like to hack things too. On the other hand, it would be a good front.
No, self-identification of being a hacker showed he could, his advocacy for open sourcing the suspect application implied the intent.
Am I the only one that is starting to think that everything wrong with society is caused by lawyers and their owners?
(Congress is 51% lawyers.)
Question everything
I hope his lawyer is able to appeal the case if this search warrant stands because any conviction would be fruit of a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Once again, capability does not equal intent nor action. If it did none of the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights could be enforced and the US government would have the right to imprison everyone in the country because everyone knows how to use a rock to smash things, just like a Brazil Nut or Abel's head.
The number of individuals who believe rights are granted by the Constitution is staggering. Many of them work in Congress.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
If you are suspected of stealing code (trade secrets in this case) its obvious that you would want to size evidence without pre warning the "alleged" criminal a chance to delete the evidence. Given what the company was developing (CNI related software) he's lucky they didn't hit him with the official secrets act or the equivalent.
It occurs to me that Pelosi has the skills and equipment to be a crack whore.
And all of those are thrown out the window when dealing with politicians or those with a political agenda.
A lot of open source projects have developers that for fun play with code and call themselves 'hackers'. I've done so in the past and often heard the phrase 'happy hacking'. I suppose the media and politicians/lawyers have completely subverted the meaning of this word.
On the other hand, whenever I hear the word 'politician' or 'lawyer' I now think 'scum' or 'on-the-take' by deafult and when I hear 'media' I think of mean old people trying to pull strings. I don't mean to, but this sort of naturally comes to mind. Words can sure change their meaning fast for people.
The question you need to ask yourself... are you worth the ~$80,000 to blow you to hell?
You sure you want an answer to that? We're talking about a group of people who regularly piss away billions as if it ain't nothin' but a thang.
$80,000 is hardly even walking-around-money to these assholes.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
So... if I call myself a particle physicist, the fellas at CERN will let me play with the LHC?
That would be a really, really stupid thing for them to do.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Means and *intent.* That's why there's a big fuss being made here. The judge saw someone describe themselves as a hacker and, presumably as a result of the difference in meaning of the term between technical and general populations, interpreted this as an admission of criminal intent. It's just the latest in a long, long run of misunderstandings resulting from a disagreement in definition. This one is of a particularly high profile as it impacted a judges decision.
I was nearly expelled from school over a similar misunderstanding myself. I scared a teacher by doing some mystic technical stuff - I forget what it was exactly, but probably something like writing a webpage using notepad rather than Frontpage like we were supposed to. Whatever I did, the school administration got scared and accused me of 'hacking.' When I admitted to hacking (by by definition) they took this as an admission that I was trying to circumvent the school security in some manner (Hacking, by their definition). It was only because one teacher in particular dared to defend me that I avoided expulsion, and was only suspended for three days.
Very shaky process the court used to determine cause, but the basic Constitutional requirements were followed.
"no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
A good lawyer would go after the warrant and get it quashed based on the crappy determination of probable cause.
So no, the 4th Amendment is not being violated here.
Firstly, they are using words with presumed [erroneous] meaning to "react" to a one-party claim of damage without validation or verification and merely presuming "oh he said hacker so he's a danger!!!" Sorry, but things shouldn't work like that.
But the assertions you are making ALSO happen. Usually, it's when women complain something about men and not so often when men complain about women or other men. (Because you know, men are evil, brutal people while women are good, kind, gentle and never ever lie about anything.) But you hyperbole is well received.
The constitution says they will not do things mentioned in the fourth amendment except upon probable cause. Is someone calling himself a hacker constitute probable cause? Especially probable cause to believe that he will destroy evidence or respond in any uncivil or unlawful way if he were tipped off to an impending investigation? I'm sorry, but that rarely, if ever happens to big business... big business which is famous for hiring paper shredder trucks to dispose of evidence on a regular basis. No, let's just trample rights because it's just a person and a business decision maker claims there is a possibility that a person might behave unethically. The response? Armed assaults on person and property over a damned civil case? I'm sorry, but I don't see why that should happen. This is all white collar stuff and should be handled appropriately.
And once again, there was a complete failure to show that the victim would likely have destroyed evidence of any sort. That's like forcing everyone to wear eye protection when using cutlery. Yes, it's "possible" but seriously?
Exceeding authority and using excessive force is a problem in this country. It's a big problem.
Does it? Remember that time you used wd-40 and duct tape to fix that little problem with your homes front door? Implementing a fix in a manor not intended by the original manufacturer is the definition of hacking, thus you sir are a hacker.
But what if you implement a fix in a cottage not intended by the original manufacturer?
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Still it's a pretty big stretch, if they subpoena his computer the normal way then he would be in for some pretty serious criminal charges for tampering with or destruction of evidence if forensics finds any trace of that source code on his computer. The same applies if he removed or replaced drives or sent in the wrong computer, once it's subpoenaed you're on the hook for providing it. I mean if the court subpoenas documents it's hardly like most people can't operate a shredder or find a fireplace. That's on the "destruction of evidence" side, on the "irreparable harm" side I'll just quote this:
Irreparable harm is a legal concept whch argues that the type of harm threatened cannot be corrected through monetary compensation or conditions cannot be put back the way they were. Examples of such irreparable harm may arise in cutting down shade trees, polluting a stream, not giving a child needed medication, not supporting an excavation which may cause collapse of a building, tearing down a structure, among other actions or omissions.
Gramted, you can't put the source code back in the bottle if it's leaked online but it's clearly the sort of harm money can fix.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
So... if I start calling myself a Commander-in-Chief, will all the 4-star generals follow my orders?
If I were to refer to myself as an OTR trucker, does that automatically mean I have the necessary knowledge and licensure to operate a big rig on public streets?
What if I started calling myself God? Would the courts recognize that to mean that I am omnipotent and omniscient?
Here's a good one: If I start referring to myself as The Honorable CanHasDIY, does that mean I have the expertise necessary to rule on matters of law?
Someone needs to inform this judge that self-proclamations do not create defacto expertise.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
As you said, he may be in some trouble (although I don't think there are serious criminal charges) IF forensics finds traces of the source code, AND the plaintiff is able to convince the jury that the forensics is real and true. But tell me, is it likely that 'most people' would know how to remove the source code and NOT leave a trace of it? Is it likely that someone who describes himself as a 'hacker' would know how to do that?
As for your destruction of documents example: if it is suspected that a specific document contains some evidence then that document will be ordered to be preserved. In that case, the document mysteriously disappearing or appearing altered would be a red flag. If the allegation is that there exists a document that proves the defendants case, then all documents may be seized/copied with no notice because it would be impossible to detect the disappearance of a document that is otherwise not known to exist.
The harm can only be fixed by money IF the defendant has the money to fix it. Remember that in this case the clients of the plaintiff are the ones who did not want the code released. If the code is released it is likely that the clients would not buy it. That means the damages are not loss of a single sale or some such nonsense, but the loss of ALL money from the product. If the defendant can't cover that, then harm has been done that can not be repaired.
So where does 'being a hacker' enter the picture?... The court used the 'we are hackers' statement as evidence that the defendant probably had the means and knowledge to destroy the evidence. Thus, the restraining order was granted.
I think the issue is that 'being a hacker' enters the picture most significantly here:
The tipping point for the Court comes from evidence that the defendants – in their own words – are hackers. By labeling themselves this way, they have essentially announced that they have the necessary computer skills and intent to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their role in that act.
That is, in the Court's view, that 'being a hacker' was both necessary ('tipping') and sufficient ('essentially announced..,', etc.) evidence that they had 'intent'. That's the scary bit - the misuse of a long-established technical term to pre-emptively trap someone, before they have any chance of input. This could very easily have been avoided by a basic level of technical background.
The other scary bit, as covered extensively already in the comments, is that this:
Battelle must show that the defendants have “a history of disposing of evidence or violating court orders or that persons similar to the adverse party have such a history.”
was essentially fulfilled by self-describing as a 'hacker' plus this:
Battelle asserts generally that defendants who have the technical ability to wipe out a hard drive will do precisely that when faced with allegations of wrongdoing.
This is the undelying point of all the analogies about capacity and intent above, whether they stack up for other reasons or not. So, I'd say there is a valid point that something went wrong. In terms of consequences, this is a public shaming for somebody trying to build a new business - whether intended as such or not and whether they are culpable or not, I can't imagine much from a business confidence survey on Southfork Security about now. The dubious logic allowed this to happen without any opportunity to protest in court. But, surely all publicity is good publicity... I guess I'd never heard of them til today.
There's a reason that the bar has to be so high: "a history of disposing of evidence or violating court orders or that persons similar to the adverse party have such a history.” Good thing they didn't notice the word 'fork' in the company name or they'd probably have the domain name too...
I don't know much about how such things work in the US, but is there any way that someone could be compensated if it was later shown that such action was negligent and (quantifiably) materially damaging?
Sorry, missed the detail in your post the first time round - far more succinct way of saying what I was trying to!
They should have been punished for teaching Frontpage.
This is exactly the type of thing that needs to be done so people can be informed voters. Unless you're heavily engaged in local politics pretty much the only information you are going to get is the fluff they want to feed you and any controversial stuff that made it into the news.
The Court used the hacker thing almost as an aside, in conjunction with several other points of decision that would have stood on their own. The biggest evidence was by a former investigator who said that typically when someone copies from their employer, they delete files or otherwise cover up their tracks. Granted, it's from an employee of the company, but that does not lessen the argument again in conjunction with other information.
Had the Court ignored the hacker thing, we would not be having this discussion at all, and it would have been a non-controversial decision.
It sounds like it's part of the standard discovery process, and it seems as if most of the people commenting on it are confused.
The guy posted YouTube videos of "his" product that still had the names and logos for his ex-employer's app, so the ex-employer was understandably antsy to make sure that the code didn't get out. The bit about him being a "hacker" played into the decision, obviously, and I agree that the decision stands on shaky ground (not least of which because there's a wide variance in what people mean by the term "hacker"), but they were reasonable and did not do anything extreme (e.g. SWAT didn't raid his house; he just had to hand over the drive).
From what I can understand in the court order (IANAL), the plaintiff isn't being given carte blanche access to the drive. Rather, they are merely being permitted to make a copy of it to their satisfaction, and then the copy and the drive are being handed over to the court for safe keeping until the court decides whether to allow it all as evidence later, and that's all because they think there is good reason for believing that he might otherwise destroy the evidence, which honestly seems like a reasonable assumption to me, given the stuff they already know of him.
They say "hax4bux"
Maybe I should actually read the article, but what is he being sued for if he hasn't actually open-sourced it yet? And if he did, there'd be some pretty clear evidence without taking his computer.
Visdom and the backend source code have been on Github for a while now: If Battelle was really convinced that Corey stole the code, you’d think they would just look there first. No need for subpoenas ref
And if he deleted the hard drive, that would serve their purposes of preventing distribution just fine. It sounds like they're trying to use the court for gathering evidence before the violation actually occurs. Not sure how they can do that, really.
Given the way the newspapers use the term "hacker", that's probably what the judge heard.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
If he ever had a copy of the code on his computer
- say, from working from home and using his own computer to do so -
it would be impossible to distinguish between having deleted them to hide them from the court, and having deleted them due to termination of employment, IP rights, and professional standards.
I can't remember if it was frontpage or dreamweaver. Didn't really seem worth remembering: I didn't try to use it for long.
It looks like all they did with the "hacker" identification is determine that they were intermediate level with computers and networking.
And here I figured being a programmer would have already demonstrated that point.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Dreamweaver has a decent syntax highlighter in code view and allows regular expressions for find/replace. Kind of hard to go back to Notepad even if you don't use anything in design view. Then again, I don't know when those features were added - I've only been using it since MX 2004. I don't think I've ever used the design view for anything but small text changes.
wish i had my points
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Instead of self-identifying as "hacker", just declare yourself one of these: 1. snacker 2. slacker 3. horcher 4. smacker 5. quacker 6. cracker - oh wait, not this one - it's both criminal AND racist! Then again, it might work... 7. fracker 8. Haquer (did you see what I did there?) 9. whacker 10. wanker 11. International Jewel Thief Spastic Mutant
Guess the NSA is going to have a real hard time getting things done huh? Maybe they should add social engineering to that list too? Think about the big picture folks, how many shades of grey in the realm of communism have been shown by our corporate run goberment? Bare in mind corporations have zero use for democracy, by the looks of things, 'tolerance' could be interchanged with 'use'.
Sounds like the school administration had heard that you were a Zero, yet still kinda Cool.
Ever wonder why the media slandered the term Hacker, conflating it with cracker instead of using it as it was originally intended? Well, guess who big corporations are most afraid of and want the right to fully control and oppress? Their Employees. It's unfortunate
So, they take the term that MIT members don willfully, and even apply to the student body regularly and liberally, and they demonize it in the public perception as one might the word "communist". It's unfortunate that to best capitalize on technology the corporations must rely on those they most fear: Those with the ability to create and leverage technology in surprising ways. The immortal corporations have sought to correct this percieved power imbalance, and have done so: In Orwellian fashion they apply additional connotation to terms that need none. I have seen this coming (and happening) for quite a while.
This is the perception manipulation end-game. It's not right, but it's reality: Adapt or become extinct. This holds true for language use in a culture ruled largely by the corrupt court of public opinion. They will not stop applying the negative connotations, Big Media Brother is wholly corrupt. I've been advising folks to stop using the term "hacker" since the more widely understood definition is now negative. I continue to call myself a Hacker, but that's because I'm prepared to face the consequences of peaceful civil disobedience. Some will have to be sacrificed or the risks will only get greater with time. I don't pretend to aspire to become the Rosa Parks of free-tech-speech to win us the right to bear technology, but bear in mind that someone will eventually as long as the current course of culture is maintained.
Now a dumb jury of peers in a court presided over by troglodytes, who are unaware of the term's dual meaning thanks to blanket negative press coverage, can be leveraged by the business behemoths to bring to bear their McCarthyistic agenda of oppression upon anyone. They may not always succeed, but they will certainly try. Note the Computer Fraud and Abuse act being leveraged for changing a digit in a URL as evidence. Make no mistake, this conspiracy is no theory: Controlling information to manufacture consent is a tale as old as time. One need only mind who controls the media, and remember Internment Camps and the witch hunts past to know the threats to your freedom over language and opinion are real. Your power of free speech will continue to be eroded because it is also feared.
Oppressors are uniform in one respect: They utilize fear to control. In this instance it is that most basic fear of what the ignorant do not understand. It's truly ridiculous to the rational minded but know this, human, you are surrounded by idiots -- These are who will judge you and/or burn you at the stake.
The court used the 'we are hackers' statement as evidence that the defendant probably had the means and knowledge to destroy the evidence. Thus, the restraining order was granted.
"Means and knowledge" don't meet the standard required for a restraining order.
They also have to demonstrate history or intent, showing that not only are they capable of disobeying the court; they are likely to disobeye the court or intentionallly commit an act of evidence spoliation
It's the equivalent of holding an accused shoplifter in prison with no bail allowed, because they are a self-described airplane pilot; with a potential ability to fly outside the country and never be heard from again.
All the defense has to do is enter Steven Levy's book into evidence. That history properly defines the term hackers.
http://www.amazon.com/Hackers-Heroes-Computer-Revolution-Anniversary/dp/1449388396/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1382495568&sr=1-1&keywords=hackers
It's okay -- you're not really a hacker until someone else calls you a hacker.
and henceforth will have Diplomatic Immunity.
Exactly, what was that about white house emails?
The search was duly authorised by a court
Which can be unconstitutional (the NSA warrants were, for example).
Unless you mean self-describing yourself as a hacker can be used as probable cause? Which seems fair enough.
Why does that seem fair? I wouldn't even call that close to probable cause.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Interesting!
The freedom of yelling “Heil Hitler” and powerlessly shaking a fetishized assault rifle until you die of some non-insured premature condition soon will be the only thing left. Sad.
It's wrong, no doubt about that. And I think it will fail if challenged in court.
But does the person being investigated have the money to fight this aspect of the case?
I see this as a widening of the censorship net around Information Technology.
Precedent can sometimes be a dangerous thing.
-Gel214th
To me, that pretty much would include almost anyone with a degree in CS. Does that mean if you have a degree in CS they can raiod your house at any time?
What troubles me about this story is that, while I do nothing but graphics programming, (OpenGL, Canvas, etc.,) I sometimes refer to it as "hacking", as in "I've been hacking on this box for about 20 hours straight now." Does this make me dangerous?? More uninformed, agenda-driven execution, if you ask me.
I used to be a staunch defender of the right of a person to "hack" under the broadest possible set of definitions for the term "hacker".
"Hacker": 1. A DIY person. 2. An unlicensed repairperson. 3. A person with the needed skills for a situation. 4. An umbrella term conglomerate with the skills of computer programming or scripting, phreaking, cracking, and a host of other skills involving physics, radio usage, metallurgy, anything under the sun, when those skills are applied in a unique fashion.
and then there's the popular definition:
"Hacker" (2) 1. A computer criminal: identity thief, password cracker, malware author.
And the debate is SO old. When I came on the scene in 1992, the debate was SO old.
DIY / engineering people wanted to reserve the term "hacker" with a presumed innocence, so they could call themselves and their friends "hackers".
And, basically, get away with it. Which I add, because the popular term is nothing like the term preferred by the DIY / engineering crowd who enjoy the use of the term.
In popular culture, "hacker" is a purely criminal term. And that includes law enforcement culture and the rest of the legal system.
Fighting the negative might seem like a jolly ride, but consider what you're ultimately doing to yourself by applying that label.
Now, in my life, personally, I stopped using the term for myself after, I dunno, high school? Thereabouts? Because, what's the point of applying the term, or of putting up the fight? Where in the spirit of DIY / engineering, does it say "oh, you should incriminate yourself in front of others, probably for the benefit of nothing more than looking cool and some desperately hoped-for but unlikely street cred."
Then, when I got to college, I found that telling people I'm pursuing a degree in computer engineering led to this statement (or a derivation thereof): "oh, you're a hacker!"
And no, they didn't mean "you're part of the ultra-hip, super-cool DIY / engineering squad of citizens who can do some McGyver shit and who stands up for causes like the misappropriations of terms by mainstream culture! Far out!"
They meant, "oh, wow, I bet you'd like if it I called you a 'hacker' right now, you fucking geek. God, if I was half as smart as you, I think I'd already be in prison. Here's hoping that you'll take the bait and open your stupid cocksucker like a real jabroni."
Or, sometimes, if they're really fucking stupid, they meant, "wow, that Hacking movie I watched last night is STILL kicking in with all this caffeine I can't stop ingesting. I hate my course of study and it bores the shit out of me, so I'll glorify this person's field of study and excite myself vicariously through that exchange, using my imagery from the movie I watched that also excited the hell out of my excitable, stimulant-addled ass. I'll be killing two birds with one frantic stone, I think! Maybe the person really IS a hacker! At the very least, I'll be able to suspend disbelief in Hollywood for a few more hours, perhaps even days!"
In either case, because you're not talking to a fellow member of the small segment of the population who fit in the DIY / Engineer / verbally jousting defender of the proper use and innocence of the term "hacker" / geek crowd, you're getting one of those two social situations, above. Take your pick.
Now, that's just in the context of running into social peers in the amazing world of "higher learning". Let's see what happens when an officer of the law, or a lawyer, or a judge, or a prosecutor, or a victim of computer crime asks if you're a hacker. What they really mean is:
"Are you one of these space-age freaks who's abusing their high priesthood secret knowledge of how the magical computer works, in order to redirect our credit, steal our identities, crack our passwords, read our email, threaten and or blackmail us, watch our laptop webcams, blow up our smart toasters, and to otherwise exploit our weaknesses?"
And the thing is, THAT is the majority of the popula
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee