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.'"

Comments

Stallman would have something to say about this

[twocows]

Aside from the obvious abuse of power, there's this: http://www.stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[girlintraining]

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.

I wasn't aware that capability implied intent. I suppose everyone who owns a gun now should just surrender their 4th amendment rights, since they have the ability to kill people. Someone find out where this judge is; let's put his name here and on as many web pages as possible so anytime anyone googles his name, they can point to this as a reason to have their case retried by a different judge who doesn't hate America.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[Anonymous Coward]

Google "ad hominem." Stallman's hygiene has no bearing on the legitimacy of what he says.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[Sarten-X]

No, but the defendant's repeated advocacy of open source implies intent to publish source code. The lawsuit is alleging that the defendant stole source code from his prior employer for the purpose of open-sourcing it as his own product.

Since the defendant clearly has intent to open-source his product, and if it were indeed stolen source it would immediately cause irreparable harm, and the defendant's own statement shows he has the skill to cause such harm quickly (well within the usual timeframes of the court process), an immediately-executed warrant is reasonable.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[databeast]

please tell me this is some attempt at sarcasm, and you aren't actually that ignorant?

Many states (such as the one I reside in) specifically ban the registration of firearms in their state constitution.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[Lithdren]

Came here to say exactly that. Reviewing what they say in the artical linked:
 
 

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 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. (underline added) And concealment likely involves the destruction of evidence on the hard drive of Thuenâ(TM)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.

Way I read this...they were unsure if this guy stole code from the company he worked for, they were pushing to seize his computer at home because they felt he had stolen code to release as an open-source option to the software he helped write that they wanted to lease out instead. The court, torn on the issue, decides that because he calls himself a 'hacker' he's able to not only steal the code, but cover his tracks. So they better seize his equipment before he gets a chance.

I hope someone beats some sense into this judge, just being capable of something does not mean you might do it. We're all murders because we all own cars capable of running people over and killing them. We're all mass murders because we have bleach/cleaning fluids at home we could dump into local water supplies poisioning the entire area. Next time someone gets hit by a car while on their bike in a hit-and-run they'll need to bring in as probable suspects everyone in the tri-state area who owns a drivers liscence. What kind of insane crap is this?

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[ElectricTurtle]

This map specifically enumerates and delineates where and how registration is required. Here's a hint: it's only in like 10% of the country where the Constitution is regularly ignored, e.g. California and New York.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[Anonymous Coward]

I was recently involved as a third party in a lawsuit where similar allegations were made. They were entirely without merit and totally malicious, simply being made in order to cause the defendant the financial hardship of having to be drawn through the legal system.

Just because one party alleges intent, does not mean there is any.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[mwvdlee]

Well obviously it's abuse of power. The judge has the the ability to abuse power and therefore, by his own logic, is abusing power.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Not even that in most states. There are no requirements to register a firearm if the seller isn't a FFL holder in my state.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[RenderSeven]

Someone find out where this judge is; let's put his name here

B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[girlintraining]

No, but the defendant's repeated advocacy of open source implies intent to publish source code.

In the same way my advocacy of and interest in international culture implies intent to engage in "unamerican" activities? In the same way that candidates for state senate saying "if itâ(TM)s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down" implies the candidate is a rapist? We've been down that road before. It doesn't lead anywhere you want to be.

The lawsuit is alleging that the defendant stole source code from his prior employer for the purpose of open-sourcing it as his own product.

And was there evidence to back up this claim, such as server logs, statements by the defendant, etc.? Because from what I've read the answer is no, there wasn't. The only evidence cited in the ex parte order was the defendant's advocacy of open source and his prior access to the ex-employer's code.

Since the defendant clearly has intent to open-source his product...

Which is his right, if he designed it on his own, as many other people have done after working on a closed source product...

and if it were indeed stolen source it would immediately cause irreparable harm

... And yet no proof the code was stolen was provided.

an immediately-executed warrant is reasonable.

No, it isn't. They need to prove he's in possession of stolen property first. His statements about what he would or wouldn't do with it have absolutely no weight whatsoever in issuing the search warrant. That the judge is making these statements implies that the evidence he had done so was very, very weak, to the point they had to rely on circumstantial evidence that is only dubiously related to the matter at hand to secure the warrant.

This sounds more like a case of a manager acting without evidence that any wrongdoing had occurred and decided to use law enforcement resources to harass the former employee. This is, for lack of a better term... a domestic dispute. It's a he said, she said situation. Except that in this case, it's a company, not an ex.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[fsagx]

That's not the scariest part. If you are a hacker and you have a penis, you MIGHT BE a rapist or child molester!

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[cayenne8]

I've never lived in a state where I have to register any of my firearms (handguns or rifles).

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[RenderSeven]

Wikipedia page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._Lynn_Winmill

Perhaps someone could update the page to include a "Controversies" section that referenced TFA? Properly written NPOV would do more to undermine his decision than posting to random tin-foil-hat sites.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[pla]

Not even that.

The USA - By which I mean federal regulations, not individual states - Has absolutely no registration requirement for any small arms (non select-fire and less than or equal to .50 caliber).

It also has no mandatory waiting period, no mandatory background check (that restriction applies to a particular class of dealers, not to buyers), no ammunition capacity limits... And, the law by default allows both concealed and open carry.

Seven states (most of them pretty obvious) have registration requirements for all guns. Another seven have registration requirements for just pistols. All but two have requirements for concealed carry, but that applies to the person, not the guns. A whopping 33 states, however, allow relatively uninhibited open carry, with another 10 allowing licensed open carry. So realistically, in most of the US, you don't need to carry concealed, you can literally walk around with a rifle slung across your back and a holster on your hip.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[pla]

The constitution specifically says congress has the right to regulate. It's IN the fucking amendment.

This argument will, of course, go nowhere because we both have a preferred interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but I at least have both grammar and history on my side. But the "fucking amendment"only refers to a "well regulated militia", not "a well-regulated firearm". More importantly, you have chosen the wrong definition of "regulated" to make that phrase better fit your worldview. Hint: Think "oil", not "laws".

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[Jane Q. Public]

"I wasn't aware that capability implied intent."

Exactly. Imagine: "By identifying themselves as CPAs, the suspects expressed an intent to launder the money and hide the evidence by manipulating the books."

Who elected this moron to be a judge?

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[thaylin]

You can sometimes call someone a name without it being an ad hominem, when you explain the reason for the name, and it is not the sole argument, such as you are stupid because of x, y and z. In this cause he explained that only some causes are your freedoms stripped like this. If you belive the bill of rights give you freedoms, and one of those freedoms in the right to own and carry a gun, then NYC could be viewed as a freedom-free zone, especially with things like stop and frisk, and city mandated limits on food and other items.

In short there is an argument there, just because you dont agree with it, or even if you dont understand it, does not make it less so.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[paiute]

I know of a group of people on Whidbey Island who have a monthly 'open carry' breakfast, which always freaks out the new waitress at Dennys.

Great. How long before some sociopath tosses a lit string of firecrackers in the door?

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[Anonymous Coward]

"I wasn't aware that capability implied intent."

Exactly. Imagine: "By identifying themselves as CPAs, the suspects expressed an intent to launder the money and hide the evidence by manipulating the books."

Who elected this moron to be a judge?

By the judges own logic, he, as a certified legal expert (one hopes that to get to be a judge one is a legal expert but in this case I have my doubts), has the capability of knowing how to circumvent the law and evade prosecution for any illegal acts he is commits and since he has that capability he must be suspected of breaking laws...

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[thaylin]

The amendment in full is:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"..

Where does that say congress has the right to regulate, or do you mean some other amendment....

Now youc an claim the SCOTUS has given the go ahead on regulation, but the amendment is clear, it shall not be infringed. We already infringe it today by limiting access to some subsets of the population in clear violation of the constitution, whether for valid reasons or not, we are still violating the constitution.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[Archangel Michael]

Clinton appointment.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[AK Marc]

If I were the judge, I'd have likely made the same order, and informed the plaintiff that if nothing is found, then 10% of annual revenue will be paid to the defendant for reparations for civil rights violations from the unfounded accusations.

I hope someone beats some sense into this judge, just being capable of something does not mean you might do it. We're all murders because we all own cars capable of running people over and killing them. We're all mass murders because we have bleach/cleaning fluids at home we could dump into local water supplies poisioning the entire area.

The claim that someone who calls himself a "cleaner" might have the skills and means to hide a murder. The issue here is that someone is harassing an ex-employee by making accusations. If they are founded, then the judge did the right thing. If they are unfounded, then the employer should be held responsible for their false accusations.

One of the problems is that our system doesn't punish false accusations, only false statements. If the employer accuses someone of something so bad, they should be liable for damages if the accusations are found to be unfounded.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[Archangel Michael]

The Bill of Rights doesn't give you freedoms. It defines what Freedoms you have, preexisting apart from Government, specifically the Federal Government. This is not a trivial difference.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[CanHasDIY]

The constitution specifically says congress has the right to regulate. It's IN the fucking amendment.

This argument will, of course, go nowhere because we both have a preferred interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but I at least have both grammar and history on my side. But the "fucking amendment"only refers to a "well regulated militia", not "a well-regulated firearm". More importantly, you have chosen the wrong definition of "regulated" to make that phrase better fit your worldview. Hint: Think "oil", not "laws".

Indeed, I'm beginning to think it's a moot point to tell people that 'regulated' didn't necessarily mean the same thing 260 years ago that it does today; they're going to believe what they want to believe, and no amount of fact or cited references will change that.

It's like tryin' to talk sense to a friggin' creationist...

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[nschubach]

And the people all sit there and stare at the door trying to figure out what's going on?

You make it sound like people who carry are willing to pull and shoot at the first backfiring car or balloon popping... and they've never heard a firecracker before.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[CrimsonAvenger]

The constitution specifically says congress has the right to regulate. It's IN the fucking amendment.

You might want to read the amendment again, then. "A well-regulated militia" means (in 20th Century American English) "a well-trained militia", "regulated" being the adjective form of "regular" (as in "regular army") when it was written.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[Bite The Pillow]

You might have a point if that were the only basis for the decision. The basis of the restraining order was to prevent irreparable harm based on likelihood to succeed with a claim, and that case was well made.

Here's the judge's info, it's right at the bottom of the court order where someone who read it would expect to find it, next to his signature. I doubt it will have the effect you wanted, because this is a decent decision.

B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

The only real counterargument would be to point to https://github.com/visdom/ which has the open source version, and was registered July of this year. Surely they could just look at the code and see if there was infringement? No, the evidence on the hard drive will be captured and stored pending further developments in the trial. The Court was preserving evidence which would most likely show that any copying was more than incidental.

This was the unquestionably correct decision, and the slashdot headline and summary are woefully oversimplifying in order to cash in on outrage. I hope you have disabled advertising, because Dice should be embarrassed that shit like this end up on the front page, and should certainly not profit from page views.

Direct quotes from the decision follow. Note: this guy worked at the company he is accused of copying from, so access to the original Sophia code is not in question, only whether it was used as a reference.

As for infringement, if there is no evidence of direct copying, âoeproof of infringement involves fact-based showings that the defendant had âaccessâ(TM) to the plaintiff's work and that the two works are âsubstantially similar.â(TM)â Funky Films, Inc. v.Time Warner Entmâ(TM)t Co., 462 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

Here, Battelle has put forward adequate circumstantial evidence to permit an inference that defendants copied Sophia. Battelle says Thuen created Visdom in a time period that is impossible without copying; he described Visdom in nearly identical language as was used to describe Sophia; he used the same demonstration videos toshowscase Visdomâ(TM)s functionality as he did to showcase Sophia; he has admitted to copying parts of Sophia; and he has adopted a nearly identical name. Based on this record, the Court concludes that Battelle is likely to prevail on its copyright infringement claim.

...Additionally, the facts show that Thuen previously defied Battelleâ(TM)s instructions to refrain from widely releasing video demonstrations of Sophia on the internet.

...To support this assertion, defendants cite Battelle employee Michael Colson, who testifies as follows: I have 23 years of experience as an investigator for government and private entities and have worked many times on matters where employees have â" without authorization â" taken data from employers for their own purposes. In my experience it is very common for such individuals to simply delete the data when they are confronted with aninvestigation, rather than admit wrongdoing. This is particularly so inregards to those with technical skills to wipe the data in a way which does [not] leave digital footprints. My investigation has revealed that Thuen has (or had) an unauthorized copy of executable Sophia code on his home computer and, from my experience, there is a high risk that he might wipe his computers destroying evidence if he had advance warning.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[RenderSeven]

What the fuck makes you think you have any right to "undermine his decision"?

As a citizen I have an obligation to call attention to poor legal decisions, and my suggestion for a NPOV Wikipedia entry linking to a citation was a call for moderation over rash action. And you should know that judges cannot be voted out, and can be cited outside of jurisdiction, so I have as much standing and interest as anyone else, and I did at least read the entire decision. Did you? While I am not an appeals judge (and pretty sure you arent either) I think there is a reasonable argument that there was a judicial error in the application of the term 'hacker', in that the court applied the term arbitrarily to motive; rather, in terms of motive all that mattered is how the defendant applied the term to himself, and the decision does not take that into consideration.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[Anonymous Coward]

"Supreme Court dominated by Originalists could reasonably take the position that no gun law anywhere in the USA is Constitutional."

        Because no gun law anywhere is legal. Want to make them legal, repeal the 2nd and 14th amendments and accept responsibility for the war that you will cause by doing so. By contract law the meaning of wording in a contract is set at the time of signing. The original constitution and contested amendments were signed in 1787/9 and it's quite clear what 'well regulated' meant at that time.

"The constitution specifically says congress has the right to regulate. It's IN the fucking amendment."

      No it doesn't. The amendment is an outright ban on government regulating firearms of any kind in any way. Just like the 1st amendment is a ban on government interfering with speech regardless of context. And law is not to be enforced until after it's broken and not before.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[Moryath]

First of all most of what you posted is an opinion not actually fact..

Fact: the Founders wanted to not have a standing military (or the expense of one) and most of them argued for the "citizen militias" as a replacement.
Fact: Washington and the other actual military members of the Convention, knowing how fucking useless the militias had been, argued strongly against this.
Fact: The "in defense of the State" option was pulled just as I said.

The rest of your bullshit is just bullshit, most notably your pointing to the Virginia Declaration. The proposed verbiage for the amendment was, in order:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the common defence, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms in defence of the State, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And just like that, a million wack-jobs began to think that the 2nd amendment allowed them limitless right to go out and be fucking irresponsible with guns, not to register (though all states at the time REQUIRED them to register for the Militia and register their service weapons and to purchase certain bore sizes to be compatible with the local and federal ammunition stores), and eventually led to a bunch of retarded teaparty wack-jobs and insane nutcases like the "Montana Freemen" and other "Militias" thinking they had the right to stage armed revolt or even kill elected officials on a whim.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[BlueStrat]

The constitution says nothing about gun registration. Stop making registration into something ti is not.

Also:
The constitution specifically says congress has the right to regulate. It's IN the fucking amendment.

I'm sorry, but are you duly-authorized & licensed to post political opinions on public forums?

The point is, your argument works for government licensing & regulation of speech as well.

It's OK if you don't believe citizens should be able to defend themselves and their families and must be rendered victims/slaves to the first nut(s)/criminal(s) that come around with a gun, and/or is physically much stronger and/or greatly outnumbers the possibly young & female victim. If enough people agree with you in electing to enforce the victim-status of the weak/infirm/aged and the majority of peaceful & law-abiding citizens, then you can amend the US Constitution, as has been done numerous times already.

Don't people understand?? You can't weaken/nullify/sidestep one part of the Constitution you disagree with without also having an equal destructive effect on the parts you do like.

Either all of it is valid as it was written, or none of it is and the USA has become an authoritarian State where "Constitutional Rights", "Rule of Law", and/or any other limits to what government can do are meaningless and empty words & concepts.

Maybe you value the 1st Amendment highly, but sharply disagree with the 2nd Amendment's protections of personal firearm ownership. That's fine and is your right to believe, and there's a provision for changing the 2nd Amendment (or any others).

*But*, attempting to "game the system" through judicial/executive/legislative/regulatory legal sophistry (much of which reads like the "Chewbacca Defense" and/or a never-published chapter of "Animal Farm") instead of following the established amendment process, destroys all of the rights, protections, and limits set forth in the entire document as the same can be done with *them* if and whenever those in government so desire.

Strat

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck makes you think you have any right to "undermine his decision"?

I think he feels he has the right to speak out against this action because he is a US citizen.

I like to think that he is right.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[lgw]

There is no "gun show exemption" - where did that myth start? - unless you mean the Gun Control Act of 1968, before which FFL dealers couldn't sell at gun shows at all. If the person selling you a gun is a FFL dealer, all the normal rules still apply. If the person selling you a gun is your neighbor selling off his collection, all the normal rules still apply.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[girlintraining]

As a previous post said, "It's more like if you claimed to be a professional killer and later claimed you kill deer." I know reading TFA is terribly out of fashion, but I recommend it. His advocacy included repeatedly pushing employers to open-source their product. That's what showed intent, not his website.

Advocating doing something isn't evidence for having actually done something. That's the point that neither you, nor apparently this judge, understands. It's like saying "Good for those 9/11 terrorists blowing up the building!" ... Not exactly winning you any friends saying that, but it doesn't make you a terrorist and it isn't a crime. It's just incredibly poor taste to say, and that is all.

So let me get this straight... before an investigation, the investigators must already have their proof?

They must have some evidence of a crime, yes. When a cop pulls you over, he can't just search your car because of the "I LOVE WEED" bumper sticker. But if he smells it on you, or sees wrapping papers on the floor, smells marijuana, etc., then that gives him what's called probable cause to conduct the search.

What exactly do you think the point of the investigation is?

Hopefully the truth. In practice though, it's more often a witch hunt. Either way, a search warrant is issued to find additional evidence of a crime (or crimes). For example, "I hate the president," isn't enough to get a search warrant issued, but "I plan on shooting the president at 3:00pm after his speech with my dad's hunting rifle" is. But the defendant in this case didn't say "I have the source code and intend to release it". It's arguable whether there was any evidence that he had it. The intent to release is based solely on previous statements made in support of open source.

What this case lacks is credibility. The judge has made assumptions about motive which are not supported by the available facts. He has linked two separate statements together to form a third statement which supports his position. In layman's terms, he jumped to a conclusion. And this is specifically why search warrants require a judge's authorization -- to prevent exactly this from happening and thus violating a person's rights. Suspicion isn't enough for a search warrant; It's rarely enough to take any action, especially when this is a civil matter and there is no imminent threat to life or property.

The judge agreed that there was a significant risk of irreversible harm if the defendant kept his computer during the investigation, so it's been seized. Big deal. It can be checked in a few days, and should be returned, if not, then it's time for a countersuit.

You clearly haven't worked with law enforcement much. Even back in the 90s, when 'cyber crime' was in its infancy, Steve Jackson Games had all its computers seized and nearly went bankrupt over allegations that their game was a 'manual for computer crime'. The computers weren't returned until over two years later, at which time the computers were worthless and out of date and the data they contained had been painstakingly recreated with varying degrees of success by the employees. Once a computer is seized, it doesn't get turned over "in a few days"... For one, the forensic labs have a backlog of months to years, and for two, as it is now material evidence, it can't be released until and unless all legal action involving it is concluded which included appeals from both sides.

So yeah, it is a big deal. It means his computer, his primary method of income has now been locked up, along with all kinds of collateral damage -- his entire digital life, including copies of resumes, bank records, pictures, etc., are all now inaccessible to him. He won't even get a copy of the hard drive back because until it has been processed, the police won't take the chance of giving him back data he could theoretically use

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[khallow]

The constitution specifically says congress has the right to regulate.

There's only one place in the entire US Constitution where any government body has the "right" to do anything. It's not the Second Amendment.

Nor does the Second Amendment give Congress the authority to regulate firearms and their use. That is implied to some degree by other parts of the Constitution.

There's no question about the meat of the Second Amendment " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "The people" is a well defined term that means everyone who lives in the US. "keep and bear Arms" is only uncertain as to what sort of weapons are considered "Arms". And "shall not be infringed" is pretty self explanatory.

As to the question of what "Arms" are allowed, the guidance of the justification phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" seems to indicate that normal infantry weapons like the M-16 rifle, common issue hand grenades, pump action shot guns, 9mm Beretta pistol, M-50 machine gun, maybe some of the more exotic weapons like wire guided missiles would. After all, how can you readily serve in a modern US flagged infantry militia if you aren't acquainted with the weapons that US infantry currently use?

I suppose the modern compromise is based on an expected training period. So the more advanced and dangerous weapons can be considered unnecessary for a militia to know going into a potential conflict. Hence, the legal definition of Arms for Second Amendment purposes is constrained somewhat from the above.

Gun registration need not be an infringement on the right to keep and bear Arms, but in practice it usually is. For example, in NYC gun registrants were public information. That was glaringly abused when the Journal News made it into an easily searchable data base. Making gun owners the public targets of thieves and witchhunters throughout the NYC area is an infringement of their Second Amendment rights.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[TheCarp]

It's worth mentioning that while it's *lawful* to do that, it's not necessarily wise. Cops don't like it, random people don't like it, and if the cops get called, more often than not they'll scrutinize every last thing you're doing, hoping to find some rule you're breaking just so they can get you and your scary open-carried gun out of public view.

As a Boston city boy, I may not have had exposure to gun owners if not for my father, who became a non-gun owning city dweller, AFTER living in the country where you were expected to have a gun by the age of 12 or so; and having been a hunter.

I remember realizing that to have a gun and hunt you would have to get out there to the hunting grounds with your gun so you must have to transport it, so I asked him about that, and so from an early age I was told that, in fact, its perfectly legal to transport guns, even in the city, but there are rules. He also told me one other thing.....

He told me that whenever he had to travel in public with one of his guns, he would always take the bolt out and shove it in his pocket. That way it was obvious (to anyone with half a brain, but particularly to any police) that it was unloaded and safe. So....even 30 years ago when I was just a kid...these issues were definitely on the minds of gun owners.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[CanHasDIY]

Your unsubstantiated claim may conceivably be true...

Go look up the FBI crime stats. I'll wait. Hell, I'll even be the nice guy and provide you with the link! .... See? Told ya so.

but how about, you know, HANDGUNS ?

You're missing the point by obsessing over the subject. The point being, as stated by OP, that "[people] can kill without a gun."

If you aren't a lawyer, then you really missed your calling.

You're not the first person to tell me that; unfortunately, today's legal system is less about forming intelligent, well-evidenced arguments, and more about who gets the fattest paycheck.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[girlintraining]

If I were the judge, I'd have likely made the same order, and informed the plaintiff that if nothing is found, then 10% of annual revenue will be paid to the defendant for reparations for civil rights violations from the unfounded accusations.

Unfortunately for you, that would be overturned on appeal. You can't censure a plaintiff for making statements that it believes are correct but later turn out to be wrong. You can only countersue for legal costs and damages, and at that, if and only if you can provide it was malicious and/or frivolous -- a very difficult thing to prove.

Because of this, it is the judge's responsibility to only grant warrants when there is sufficient evidence to justify it. You don't lower the standard simply because the other guy has money he could stand to be parted with if he's wrong.

The issue here is that someone is harassing an ex-employee by making accusations. If they are founded, then the judge did the right thing.

Incorrect. The granting or not granting of a search and seizure or arrest should be based strictly, solely, only, on probable cause. That is the standard. It is not suspicion, it is not motive-based. Only the likelihood of an actual criminal act, based entirely on the evidence presented, should be used to make that determination. It has been said the road to hell is paved with good intentions... which is precisely why you shouldn't consider intent when a person's civil liberties or freedom is at stake: Only and totally their provable actions.

One of the problems is that our system doesn't punish false accusations, only false statements.

Accusation: a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.
Statement: a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing.

All accusations are statements, but not all statements are accusations. Ergo, your statement is a non sequitur.

If the employer accuses someone of something so bad, they should be liable for damages if the accusations are found to be unfounded.

This is a separate issue, best decided upon in open trial, not in a judge's chambers, as this warrant has been done. There's a reason it is done this way, and it has nothing to do with convoluted logic like yours -- it is because in the several hundred years of common law and over two hundred years of case law in the United States, the way we do it has proven to be the one most likely to result in justice.

Your solution would have us forever bandaiding and ductaping over the broken parts and a neverending series of recriminations. The legal process would simply not have an end point anymore.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[Bite The Pillow]

The court, torn on the issue, decides that because he calls himself a 'hacker' he's able to not only steal the code, but cover his tracks. So they better seize his equipment before he gets a chance.

Nope, they issued an order to image the drive and return it, with the image held basically in escrow, to prevent losing evidence. And the decision was based on way more than what you listed here, including an statement by Thuen that he had copied the code. I have a more substantial post, probably further down the page, but you are +5 insightful and probably influencing other opinions based on only having partial information.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[SourceFrog]

Of course you have a right to criticize a judge's decision, probably falls under the '1st Amendment' .. you don't have to be an appeals judge or be in his jurisdiction .. the words in your post are so glaringly obviously nonsensical I honestly cannot fathom how you got to +4.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[HornWumpus]

Except the feds have been repeatedly caught with 'archives' of the background check data.

Including records that they had previously been caught keeping and been ordered to delete. They magically reappear in the database every time they are found to have it online, yet again.

I know, I know. Tinfoil hat, same as when I said the feds know everybody you've ever called on the phone.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[SourceFrog]

Self-defense is a basic human right, it exists independently of the Constitution. You would have a right to bear arms even if the founders never existed and the Constitution never existed ... it's a self-evident extension of the fact that you (a) have a right to defend your life against attack and (b) have a right to own things.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[sabt-pestnu]

> your anecdote is not verifiable and so worthless.

Without references, the anecdote merely states that this type of suit is not uniformly justified. Which should be a surprise to no one. Not much call to verify it. With references, you'd still have insufficient basis to judge the merits of that particular case. You'd then have to get first hand information to attempt to verify the case. And even then, it would not inform you about the validity of the Thuen case.

So why are you kicking up a fuss about the anecdote?

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[jythie]

That is not a terribly good place to start since the framers had a pretty diverse set of views, not only in terms of their debates but how they walked away understanding what had been agreed on. That is one of the reasons there was a Bill of Rights rather then having those amendments folded strait into the constitution, the arguments and political horse trading was lasting too long.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[mdielmann]

Way I read this...they were unsure if this guy stole code from the company he worked for, they were pushing to seize his computer at home because they felt he had stolen code to release as an open-source option to the software he helped write that they wanted to lease out instead. The court, torn on the issue, decides that because he calls himself a 'hacker' he's able to not only steal the code, but cover his tracks. So they better seize his equipment before he gets a chance.

The part that kills me about this is that any programmer who is capable of actually having programming be his primary occupation, will have the skills necessary to perform this task. I know how to zip files and use DropBox. I can remember the password for that service, and access it from just about any device I can get my hands on. So can many of my computer-literate, non-programmer friends. The only things special about this guy is: he's a (very) strong advocate of open source; and he calls himself a hacker. The first doesn't mean he's about to violate his contract (code written under work-for-hire), and the second means nothing at all.

I really hope this guy gets a lawyer, gets this BS seizure overturned, and gets his stuff back ASAP. If he's smart and diligent, he may have a backup on a server at an ISP somewhere, and it will not only not be egregious, it won't be effective.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[Solandri]

You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

"Free State". Not the current state, or the state we establisehd in 1787, or the United States of America, but free state. As in an idea. The right to bear arms isn't to preserve the State in whatever incarnation it may morph into in the future. It's to preserve and maintain the State in a status of being free. If the State should deviate from the status of being free, the 2nd Amendment is there to help the people shift it back to a free one.

This was judged impossible to do unless the people had the right to bear firearms independent of the State's authority. Precisely the opposite of how you're interpreting the Amendment. You're mixing up the terms because back then, "the State" on everyone's minds was rule by England. "Free State" was the new Constitutional republic they'd created. But they were smart enough to realize things might change, so they specifically called it "free state" or "free country" in every iteration of the Amendment you've quoted. Never "this country" or "the United States" as you seem to want to interpret it.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[Zordak]

TL;DR version: Girlintraining says:

Good for those 9/11 terrorists blowing up the building!

This message brought to you by the Counsel for Accuracy and Fairness in Political Discourse.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[Sarten-X]

Advocating doing something isn't evidence for having actually done something

Nobody's saying it is. It does strongly suggest that given the chance, you will do something, though. That's the concern here, that the defendant would either wipe his hard disk or publish his ex-employer's proprietary information. On multiple occasions in the past, he'd released internal company information after being advised not to, and violated written contracts with the company. The main factor in having the restraining order approved with no advance notice is that his website said that he'd be releasing source code to his own product "soon".

They must have some evidence of a crime, yes.

Nope. As you note later, they need "probable cause". That's not actual evidence, and it's not nearly the high burden of proof you seem to think it is. In this case, the court does have evidence that the defendant had an unauthorized copy of the source code previously, and the defendant has promised to release his own source code "soon". If what he releases is actually his ex-employer's code, that harm would be irreparable. That's plenty of reasonable cause.

Suspicion isn't enough for a search warrant

But suspicion, probable cause, and a pressing time limit are.

...back in the 90s, when 'cyber crime' was in its infancy ... The computers weren't returned until over two years later...

Things have changed in the past 15 years. In this case, his hard disk is to be immediately turned over to the court, and returned when the court deems it appropriate after further litigation. Meanwhile, there is no restraint on the defendant to prevent using other computers.

It means his computer, his primary method of income has now been locked up, along with all kinds of collateral damage -- his entire digital life, including copies of resumes, bank records, pictures, etc., are all now inaccessible to him.

As security against the inconvenience, Battelle is also required to deposit $25,000 with the court, plus more if the court approves the defendant's requests.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this

[Dextrously]

Advocating doing something isn't evidence for having actually done something

Nobody's saying it is. It does strongly suggest that given the chance, you will do something, though. That's the concern here, that the defendant would either wipe his hard disk or publish his ex-employer's proprietary information. On multiple occasions in the past, he'd released internal company information after being advised not to, and violated written contracts with the company. The main factor in having the restraining order approved with no advance notice is that his website said that he'd be releasing source code to his own product "soon".

Well, your link doesn't actually point to any evidence that he "released internal company information after being advised not to". What it does say is that he recorded demonstration videos, applied through the proper channels for authorization to release those video to beta and alpha testers. After obtaining the limited authorization, he then posted the video on his site and youtube. The plaintiff alleges that he overstepped the limited authorization given on releasing these demonstration videos. This is the only occasion I am seeing, unless I am missing something, additionally, it seems more like a misunderstanding than anything else.

In fact, everything that the complaint alleges that he might have done illegally is referenced to as "On information and belief", yet no actual information is provided to support their beliefs. Contrary to their beliefs, they have actually painted Thuen as a law abiding citizen, by detailing all of the legal recourse he took in order to ensure he was doing things by the letter of the law. They have shown that he has a long history of attempting to follow the proper legal channels in all of his actions.

Additionally, Thuen's site has this to say:

Hi. So, if you're here, you might have read about Battelle's lawsuit against us. Obviously, until the injunction hearing, we can't say anything about what's going on, and until the forensics guys are done imaging our computers, as they are right now, we can't even type it.

But I think it's safe to say that, no, we didn't steal government code and then open-source it. If you'd like to be updated on this case and the proceedings, you can follow us on g+ and twitter. We thank everyone for their support, genuinely. Thanks.

They must have some evidence of a crime, yes.

Nope. As you note later, they need "probable cause". That's not actual evidence, and it's not nearly the high burden of proof you seem to think it is. In this case, the court does have evidence that the defendant had an unauthorized copy of the source code previously, and the defendant has promised to release his own source code "soon". If what he releases is actually his ex-employer's code, that harm would be irreparable. That's plenty of reasonable cause.

That doesn't make sense to me. Probable cause is generally defined as: "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".

The plaintiffs own complaint lists out all of the steps he took to ensure that he was taking a legal course of action. The only thing a reasonable person could assume from this is that he was setting himself up to compete with the other company, which obviously, even they realized. A paranoid person might believe that he is using source code illegally, regardless of the evidence in their own claim that suggests otherwise. However, probable cause does not suggest that we take paranoia into consideration. As far as I know, prudent and cautious people don't assume that others act in complete discourse with their past behavior.

Susp

Wait, what? I'm a unicorn, arrest me?

[Anonymous Coward]

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 intent"

[darrellg1]

So a title implies intent?! This looks like the steepest slope coated in vasteline ever.

Re:"and intent"

[Joining Yet Again]

Just re-read the article but with "cracker" substituted for "hacker" and you'll understand how it seems to a layperson.

Imagine describing yourself as a "thief" - it suggests an intent to steal.

The only issue here is a misinterpretation of jargon.

Re:"and intent"

[cheekyjohnson]

No, but it arouses reasonable suspicion regarding intent and means

I don't think it's reasonable at all.

Maybe I'm looking at it like someone with legal training. All I can say here is: it is good to have a lawyer. Words have meanings, and they'll not be interpreted the way YOU want them to be interpreted. If in doubt, keep your mouth shut.

You do indeed have to be careful around thugs who want to violate your rights.

Re:Wait, what? I'm a unicorn, arrest me?

[gl4ss]

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?

They do have the ability to release code silently.

[iYk6]

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.

Wrong definition

[HalAtWork]

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!

Aren't we all hackers?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Not American

[Anonymous Coward]

First, they came for the Americans and I did nothing because I'm not American...

Full court decision

[QuietLagoon]

The full court decision is here. (pdf)

Sensationalistic, much?

[Baloroth]

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.

Re:Sensationalistic, much?

[mrchaotica]

Maybe you might argue the court didn't really have reasonable suspicion, but thats for the defendant's lawyer to argue.

Well, you see, the defendant's lawyer never had the opportunity to argue because the defendant wasn't just ordered to give the hard drive up but rather was raided by police with no warning. That's kind of the entire problem...

Re:Sensationalistic, much?

[cheekyjohnson]

In the past it's often to prevent them from flushing drugs down the toilet

Is that supposed to be a good thing? And since when is freedom less important than safety?

Re:Meh, too alarmist

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter if you believe he stole the code, or even if he actually did steal the code.
What matters is if his rights were violated.
Self-describing as a "hacker" should have no influence in whether someone should be able to access your hard drive.

Re:Meh, too alarmist

[mrchaotica]

Essentially, the guy allegedly stole^W copyright-infringed 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. And his personal effects were raided by police over what by all rights should be a civil matter to begin with.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Fourth Amendment Rights?

[mexsudo]

"Most people have the intelligence to understand plain English" I wish that were a true statement, but it is not.

Re:Wait, what? I'm a unicorn, arrest me?

[gl4ss]

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.

Re:Meh, too alarmist

[Wycliffe]

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.

What do you think a "violation of the 4th amendment" is then? To me "an excuse to bypass the 4th amendment to gain X" is
exactly that. It is a violation and an attempt to bypass the 4th amendment. Whether he is guilty is not the point.
Now if they got a proper warrant and executed it correctly, that's a different story but if they are using an excuse to bypass
proper protocol then it very much is a violation of the 4th amendment. It doesn't really matter what the excuse is either.

Ability does not imply intent, nor should it

[n5vb]

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.

Re:Not American

[gmuslera]

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?

Re:Sexy

[TheCarp]

Tell that to Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico, Norton I.

-Steve, Imperator of the Legion of Earth, God-King of all mankind.

Re:They do have the ability to release code silent

[dissy]

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?

Re:Wait, what? I'm a unicorn, arrest me?

[bws111]

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.

White hat hackers

[neghvar1]

So what does this mean for white hat hackers and Certified Ethical Hackers

Technically

[g0bshiTe]

If you read TFA, if you are technically capable of wiping a computer you have no 4th amendment rights.

This really makes my heart sink

[wjcofkc]

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.

Re:This really makes my heart sink

[SuricouRaven]

Almost happened to me too, though it was so long ago I can't remember exactly what I did. I think I might have been writing a website using notepad and HTML rather than dreamweaver or frontpage like the teacher asked. Whatever it was, one of the teachers got scared and assumed I was trying to do something dangerous. I only avoided expulsion because another teacher came to my defense.

Re:Not American

[gmuslera]

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.

Happy hacking?

[InfiniteLoopCounter]

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.

Not loss of 4th Amendment rights

[the eric conspiracy]

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.

What's in a Name?

[CanHasDIY]

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.

Re: Stallman would have something to say about thi

[HiThere]

Given the way the newspapers use the term "hacker", that's probably what the judge heard.