Slashdot Mirror


CEO of Spyware Maker Arrested For Enabling Stalkers

An anonymous reader writes: U.S. authorities have arrested and indicted the CEO of a mobile software company for selling spyware that enables "stalkers and domestic abusers." The U.S. Department of Justice accuses the man of promoting and selling software that can "monitor calls, texts, videos and other communications on mobile phones without detection." The agency pointed out this is the first criminal case based on mobile spyware, and promised to aggressively pursue makers of similar software in the future. Here's the legal filing (PDF). The FBI, with approval from a District Court, has disabled the website hosting the software.

"The indictment alleges that StealthGenie's capabilities included the following: it recorded all incoming/outgoing voice calls; it intercepted calls on the phone to be monitored while they take place; it allowed the purchaser to call the phone and activate it at any time to monitor all surrounding conversations within a 15-foot radius; and it allowed the purchaser to monitor the user's incoming and outgoing e-mail messages and SMS messages, incoming voicemail messages, address book, calendar, photographs, and videos. All of these functions were enabled without the knowledge of the user of the phone."

195 comments

  1. Cue the TLA jokes... by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 2

    There's an NSA joke in there somewhere...

    1. Re:Cue the TLA jokes... by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful
      NSA? Heck...

      it recorded all incoming/outgoing voice calls; it intercepted calls on the phone to be monitored while they take place; it allowed the purchaser to call the phone and activate it at any time to monitor all surrounding conversations within a 15-foot radius; and it allowed the purchaser to monitor the user's incoming and outgoing e-mail messages and SMS messages, incoming voicemail messages, address book, calendar, photographs, and videos. All of these functions were enabled without the knowledge of the user of the phone.

      Name any government law enforcement agency which would have even a moment's hesitation before using that.

      The company's only issue was a failure of marketing - they were trying to sell it to the wrong audience.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:Cue the TLA jokes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're one letter out. The TLA this story most affects is the NRA, not the NSA.

    3. Re:Cue the TLA jokes... by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The company's only issue was a failure of marketing - they were trying to sell it to the wrong audience.

      Or just that the government hates competition.

    4. Re:Cue the TLA jokes... by davydagger · · Score: 0

      Law enforcement agencies, Heck, I am more thinking about how something like the "Sharia Police" or their white(or any other fucking race) nationalist equivilants, could use this to create their own pseudo law enforcement street gangs.

      The last thing we need is moralists, gangs, paristan activists using this to harrass their critics.

      On the other hand, I think this should be legal, but it should be by law mandated open source. It should be sent to every security lab for anaylsis, and it should be available for everyone to download, disect, dissemenate, and learn about?

      Why? Because people should be aware the capabilities of such software, and by making it public we force people to talk about it, write more software to stop it, and find ways to mitigate it.

    5. Re:Cue the TLA jokes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this one? https://twitter.com/jeffburdges/status/516796530548682752

    6. Re:Cue the TLA jokes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. This is another example of one law for us and another for them. When they do it, it is preserving national security. When we do it, its criminal.

      Honestly, I think the only reason this guy is being arrested isn't even that he made and is selling this stuff, but that he is drawing attention to just now *easy* it is for all of this to be done through a cell phone. This awareness-raising will make people use their phones more cautiously, and *that* is something the government can't have.

      Government may be necessary, but it is clearly and abominably evil. Especially ours.

    7. Re:Cue the TLA jokes... by msmonroe · · Score: 1

      There's gotta also be a Minority Report joke in there somewhere as well....now we're prosecuting "Precrime"?
      How long before we start prosecuting security researchers for security holes that we know they will find and exploit someday!

    8. Re:Cue the TLA jokes... by msmonroe · · Score: 2

      By the way why don't they prosecute gun manufacturers? We know a certain percentage of guns will be used in a crime?
      Again "Precrime"! which is nothing like "Precumm"!

    9. Re:Cue the TLA jokes... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Hint...the next guy selling this software should offer better terms to the gov't.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. But its perfectly Ok for the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Double standards... gotta love'em

    1. Re:But its perfectly Ok for the NSA by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      By arrested, is a code word for recruited by the NSA.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:But its perfectly Ok for the NSA by martas · · Score: 0

      I'm sick of double standards too. I can't cut up strangers, but it's perfectly OK for surgeons? I can't put people I don't like in cages, but it's perfectly OK for the police? I can't lock people in metal tubes and set fire to canisters of jet fuel next to them, but it's perfectly OK for airlines?

  3. Obligatory... by Adeptus_Luminati · · Score: 0

    Brace yourselves, the NSA jokes are queuing!

    --
    No trees were killed in the making of this post; however, many trillions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
  4. Can't let anybody but the NSA have the GOOD toys.. by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's not an arrest for enabling stalking. It's an arrest for enabling *unapproved* stalking.

  5. I bet the NSA offers him a job by FudRucker · · Score: 0

    no text here, the comment is in the subject line, thank you for participating in Slashdot.org and have a nice day

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:I bet the NSA offers him a job by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

      I bet the NSA has had this, and more than this, for many years, and will only see to it that this fellow is stomped into mush.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:I bet the NSA offers him a job by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Not until his company hires at least 3 relatives of cabinet members or former congressmen.

    3. Re:I bet the NSA offers him a job by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      those government knuckleheads have about as much sense as the three stooges!!!

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  6. Sounds great... by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...is there a link to this useful software?

    I'd love to be able to do all those things on my phone.

    I already record all of my calls.

    1. Re:Sounds great... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it keeps saying "City Of London Police."

    2. Re:Sounds great... by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Do you warn people in your conversations that they are being recorded? Do you include a recording notification, a beep, while the conversation is going on? No? Then you'll probably have a knock on the door by the feds if you live in the US for violating wiretapping laws.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    3. Re:Sounds great... by vomitology · · Score: 5, Informative

      Depends on where they are. In many states, it's legal as long as one party is aware the call is being recorded.

      --
      ~Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, but Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.
    4. Re:Sounds great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in AZ. Only one party needs to consent, and that party is me.

    5. Re:Sounds great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...only in a few backward states in the Home of the Slave. In the rest of the world it's perfectly fine to record the things you can hear.

    6. Re:Sounds great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. However California is one of the states that require consent of both parties.

    7. Re:Sounds great... by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      And, as my name gives some indication, that's my home state too.

      So, nope, I just record my calls.

      As discussed here at length, there are places, like California, who think they can tell me what to do in Arizona if someone from California calls me, but I'm willing to take my chances. [Wikipedia says: The California Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that if a caller in a one-party state records a conversation with someone in California, that one-party state caller is subject to the stricter of the laws and must have consent from all callers (cf. Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95[35]).]

    8. Re:Sounds great... by Arker · · Score: 1

      Yes, California is insane and has many insane laws.

      The chances of them actually enforcing that one? Pretty damn low. First they would have to catch you, of course. And even if they do you'll be fine if you can afford a lawyer through appeals.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  7. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the by Snufu · · Score: 0

    spies!

  8. There is almost an app I would want. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man, I would pay for an app with those features that ran on my own phone(can notify me the user fine); provided it worked over wifi/voip calls and what not. I'm often lied to by people I deal with on the phone, I've looked into call recorders before but never quite worked.

    I would also like an app that recorded any 'noise' event for X seconds then uploaded the mp3 file to a specified site. It could be used as home security noise alam on older phones.

    1. Re:There is almost an app I would want. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Check your local laws first - in several states it's illegal to record a conversation unless you inform everyone first. And if you're going to be informing them... well that alone might do the trick to get them dealing with you more honestly, no actual recording necessary.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:There is almost an app I would want. by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      On my Android, I already use Automatic Call Recorder Pro. Records all calls, or can whitelist/blacklist contacts if you just want to record unsolicited calls. Uploads semi-automatically to a number of back-end cloud services.
      https://play.google.com/store/...

      There seem to be numerous automatic sound recorders that trigger on sound level. A few searches of the play store turn up dozens, some with good reviews. [And the ones with mixed reviews seem to be device specific errors...]

  9. Oh Geeez by jmd · · Score: 3, Informative

    Can't we find something better of DoJ to do. Start with bankers please.

    1. Re:Oh Geeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You jealous that banks have money, bro?

    2. Re:Oh Geeez by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      How about finding all of those guns that went south of the border first? This kind of case is just noise to distract us from the other shit the DoJ has fucked up for nearly 6 years.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    3. Re:Oh Geeez by jmd · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, not at all jealous. But, I am pissed because many bankers have been fradulent and not prosecuted. And at age 59 my retirement and retirement saving are a full 1/3 less now and this is directly related to the financial crisis of 2007-08.

    4. Re:Oh Geeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck. You.

    5. Re:Oh Geeez by fche · · Score: 1

      "fraudulent" is quite an accusation. If you try to outlaw market crashes/corrections, you will kill the market, and then what of your retirement savings?

    6. Re:Oh Geeez by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > "fraudulent" is quite an accusation. If you try to outlaw market crashes/corrections, you will kill the market, and then what of your retirement savings?

      If you allow market crashes caused by rampant fraud, you won't have to worry about retirement savings. You probably won't live that long.

      This stuff is nothing new. People just like to ignore history.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  10. Not sure about this. by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not sure about this legally. The software does not infect devices, nor does it get installed through deception. It is purchased and installed by someone who has access to the device. The person who installed the software without the owner's permission (assuming that person doesn't own the phone in the first place) would be responsible for any illegal actions. An analogy is trying to bring a lawsuit against a company that produces baby monitors, because someone put a baby monitor in someone else's home without permission or notification in order to stalk them. There are legitimate uses for the software, for example a parent wanting to monitor their minor child's use of the phone. Or I might would put it on my own phone in case my phone is stolen or lost.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Not sure about this. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      if they marketed it in ways that made it clear that they were intending for it to be used illegally they certainly can be charged.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    2. Re:Not sure about this. by gandhi_2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      performance cars are marketed in ways that make it clear that they are intending for them to be driven in excess of posted speed limits.
      closed circuit course. professional driver. unreadable text

      arresting someone because they produce a product that can be used illegally? first off, "they" get to make anything illegal even if they don't technically have the power. then they will interpret the laws however they want. and now, prosecute people who even enable the breaking of arbitrary laws. gun, alcohol, car, knife, baseball bat, and spray paint makers should worry about the implications.

      in fact, electronics tinkerers, makers of kits like arduinos, 3d printers, and about a billion other groups should be concerned with governments who grant themselves infinite power. "stalkers"... so like pedophiles and terrorists, a group we can invoke whenever we wanna get shit done.

    3. Re:Not sure about this. by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Yes. Which is why the clerks in a head shop are careful to explain the pipes and bongs are for tobacco use only, and the customers are urged to play along.

      If the defendants advertised carefully, they may have a legal leg to stand on.

      When you are offering for sale a product or service that could be operated adjunct to a criminal offense, you'd be wise to do the CYA in triplicate.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    4. Re:Not sure about this. by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      This sounds like it would be better categorized as "illegal wiretapping".

    5. Re:Not sure about this. by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      I am sure that when he has his day in court, he will be vindicated. Like Megaupload.

    6. Re:Not sure about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, basically, if you lie well enough about what your product is for then it's OK. Gotcha.

      This is what's wrong with society. Gotta fight the for-profit War On Drugs (tm) and if we can't catch people with actual drugs, we'll make up some bullshit crime making it illegal to have stuff that in somebody's imagination could possibly be used in support of using drugs. Carry a multi-tool or a screwdriver? Burglary tools! And God forbid anybody sell paint to somebody without 2 forms of ID and a note from their mother. Got a scary looking gun that's painted black? It must be an "assault weapon" (there's no such thing, really).

      This making "things" illegal has absolutely got to stop. Harming people is what should be illegal. People who do that should be punished. But sometimes we just don't like some people, be they the wrong age, the wrong skin color, or, increasingly, just possessing a Y chromosome, and convicting people of actual crimes is HARD WORK. We don't want our heroes of law enforcement to actually have to do hard work and maybe lose a case, so we have to make it easy for the poor little babies to convict people of crimes they haven't even actually done yet.

      The founders would be absolutely disgusted with what we've become.

    7. Re:Not sure about this. by rmdingler · · Score: 2

      so like pedophiles and terrorists, a group we can invoke whenever we wanna get shit done.

      The march towards abridging of inconvenient individual rights always begins at the most loathsome.

      Sympathizer, communist, witch, traitor, pedobear, terrorist... sell whatever's the current Beelzebub.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    8. Re:Not sure about this. by N_Piper · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To me the first thing this case really hinges on is Jurisdiction and Venue, this is a Pakistani citizen living in Pakistan running a company in Pakistan.
      The DOJ is basing their claim of American on this is the Amazon Cloud based webpage selling this stuff.
      In reality this is a Publicity stunt through and through.

    9. Re:Not sure about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely what people should be concerned with, is that these become arbitrary laws selectively enforced by the same people that do the same shit whenever they feel like. Let's not forget that the NSA has been doing all of this and more, with no consent of _either_ party.

    10. Re:Not sure about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone against laws protecting children, the rights of woman, and terrorism is obviously a threat to the very society that you live in. Imagine a world with network neutrality and not being able to filter child porn and bomb making instructions.

    11. Re:Not sure about this. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      I find myself wondering what laws they actually broke...

      It's not like they did any actual wiretapping themselves, so it wasn't the wiretapping laws.

      Is there an actual law on the books that allows the Feds to arrest you for making software that ALLOWS wiretapping? If so, I suspect that the Feds should be chasing down a lot more people than just this lot...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    12. Re:Not sure about this. by martas · · Score: 1

      arresting someone because they produce a product that can be used illegally

      There is a difference between "can be used illegally" and "will pretty much only be used illegally". Give me one example of something that is illegal to sell that can't be used legally.

    13. Re:Not sure about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how doing the California Youth Auxiliary three times would help your court case.

    14. Re:Not sure about this. by almitydave · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget that the NSA has been doing all of this and more, with no consent of _either_ party.

      Ha, that gives me an idea. Just start all phone conversations with "this call may be monitored by law enforcement for unknown purposes." That'll probably really cut down on my phone time.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    15. Re:Not sure about this. by almitydave · · Score: 1

      Landmines? I'm really struggling to imagine a legal use of those. Probably some poisons, too, athough I suppose you could posit a researcher needing for legitimate research purposes.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    16. Re:Not sure about this. by martas · · Score: 1

      I have never heard of civilian sale or use of landmines, so I can't comment on that. As for poisons, they are primarily used for pest control, not killing people.

    17. Re:Not sure about this. by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      Riiiiighhhhht....

      because we ALL know that bit torrent's REAL pupose is to download Ubuntu Server iso's and Libre Office insta... GET FUCKING SERIOUS!

    18. Re:Not sure about this. by martas · · Score: 1

      There is of course a fairly high bar for deciding whether something is intended to be used to break the law or not. Often (though not always), emphasizing legal uses in the branding and advertising of an item is sufficient to ensure the bar isn't reached. There is a large amount of legal content available as torrents, and these are used in advertising (e.g.).

      Also, the existence of grey areas doesn't invalidate the general principle. RANDOM PROFANE OUTBURST!

    19. Re:Not sure about this. by cfsops · · Score: 1

      weed in most states, cocaine, heroine, people.

    20. Re:Not sure about this. by cfsops · · Score: 1

      I think they are trying to "make a point", but it seems the point is on top of their heads.

      Perhaps since the software was being hosted over AWS, they'll next go after Amazon for selling surveillance systems.

      I would say this is one of the silliest things I've ever heard, but I've only just started reading ./ this evening. :)

  11. The NSA hates competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they gained another tool! Win-win!

    1. Re:The NSA hates competition by Sauce+Tin · · Score: 1

      And they gained another tool! Win-win!

      This is child's play compared to what the NSA has; in no way shape or form does this present "competition." A typical NSAer would say something along the lines of "Does it even have a 0day?" This tool implies you have to have some form of access to the device, or you have to fool the user into installing it, or you have to have your own exploit.

  12. NPR covered this topic recently by SpzToid · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
  13. Case on Shaky Ground by FrodoOfTheShire · · Score: 2

    You could argue that there are several legitmate uses for the software. IE Parents monitoring their children. Law Enforcement using the tools. Companies monitoring phones supplied to employees.
    How is this software marketed? Is it strictly to stalkers? I kind of doubt it. It's just a technology that can be used for nefarious purposes.
    You could just as easily argue that the government enables stalkers due their creation of roads and sidewalks that allow stalkers to follow their victims more easily. It is hard to see how they FBI can prove their case.

    1. Re: Case on Shaky Ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Monitoring your children without their consent or that of others captured by this software is illegal in most states.

      Believe it or not, your kids have civil rights.

      Interestingly, to install on an iPhone requires a jailbreak and physical access. Android, on the other hand, requires a password and Internet access. Crap like this is a perfectly valid reason not to jaibreak your iPhone - it remains far more secure than Android at this time.

    2. Re:Case on Shaky Ground by Virtucon · · Score: 2

      Uh Law enforcement wouldn't use this, they have their own tools. Parents monitoring their kids? Plausible but it's also probably used by suspicious spouses to catch their partner in the act. It's an inevitable fact that since smart phones have become so ubiquitous now that this tool didn't show up on the radar sooner. What seems hypocritical to me in the case is that this guy sells a product that covers quite a bit of what Apple and Google do to a large extent already; track you. Of course their purposes are for "system quality" and "targeted ads" but there's still a substantial amount of metadata collected and cataloged. This guy just goes one step further and enables some features that obviously the government doesn't want you to have so they can monopolize the nefarious practices.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    3. Re: Case on Shaky Ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monitoring your children without their consent...

      You're posting from Colorado, aren't you.

    4. Re:Case on Shaky Ground by irq-1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You could argue that there are several legitmate uses for the software. ... How is this software marketed? Is it strictly to stalkers? I kind of doubt it. It's just a technology that can be used for nefarious purposes.

      Kim Dotcom and Megaupload made it clear that having a lawful, substantial use is not a defense. Not for todays Department of Justice.

      It is hard to see how they FBI can prove their case.

      Why would they need to? Threaten 35 years under the CFAA and plea bargain them.

      It's the law of the jungle for software and the internet -- don't be small or slow or you might become prey.

    5. Re:Case on Shaky Ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no evidence, but my gut is telling me this is the top of the slippery slope and the government chose this case to start because the software has slimy uses, so people will not protest too much.

      First the spyware makers will be in prosecuted. Likely because they refused to put in a back door for law enforcement.

      Then the encryption makers.

      Then anyone who makes software that doesn't have total back doors for the government to use. Basically any OS that doesn't have something like VNC so integrated it's virtually impossible to remove will become illegal.

      Welcome to 1984. Just a little more than 30 years later than predicted.

    6. Re:Case on Shaky Ground by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      This. The mere suggestion that a device may be used to cause harm (no matter its primary purpose) is enough for these pricks to automatically assume that that was the intent. Cases such as this won't go to jury trial, it'll be on the book as a summary offence, triable by a single magistrate in a fifteen minute Star Chamber hearing.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    7. Re: Case on Shaky Ground by ihtoit · · Score: 0

      uh... they're minors, there are rules. If you don't behave yourself on the internet, and I'll know, then I'll revoke access. No backsies, no apologies, no second chances. Don't like those rules? Fine, don't use the internet here. Go to the library and try the shit you're thinking of pulling here, see how fast you end in Juvi. I'll wave as I drive past.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    8. Re: Case on Shaky Ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monitoring your children without their consent or that of others captured by this software is illegal in most states.

      Believe it or not, your kids have civil rights.

      I call bullshit on the monitoring. I believe children should be informed of any such software, but consent is not necessary. That's exactly why kids aren't typically legally liable for damage they do, their parents are (except in the RARE excpetion where a minor is tried as an adult for something serious like murder).
      Kid's can't vote, or buy alcohol. They're mandated (read:forced) to attend school or have schooling of some kind.
      They are not adults, they enjoy certain exceptions from responsibility but also don't have certain rights until adulthood. No one gets to eat their cake and have it too.
      What next? Parents have no right to send their kid to their room or punish them because that violates their right to freedom?
      Sounds like a terrific way to raise another generation of even more obnoxious, self-centered brats than are already out there.

      There's no reason to not tell your child you're installing something like this on their phone. My family all has Life 360 installed. We all know it. Not because I need to monitor him like a criminal, but because if he's hurt, lost, or abducted, I need to know where he is to help him. But it's not his decision until he's 18. Besides, I pay for his phone and his account, and I am responsible for him.

    9. Re: Case on Shaky Ground by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      And the Dad of the Year awards goes to...

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    10. Re:Case on Shaky Ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kim Dotcom and Megaupload made it clear that having a lawful, substantial use is not a defense. Not for todays Department of Justice.

      Kim Dotcom made it clear that using your own product for illegal uses will get you in big trouble. Look, the DoJ might have illegally obtained those e-mails, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend they didn't exist. Kim and his cohorts were regularly sharing links to materials they clearly knew were illegal. They were caught red handed. They were using their own tools illegally!

    11. Re: Case on Shaky Ground by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      you're welcome.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    12. Re: Case on Shaky Ground by cfsops · · Score: 1

      except in the RARE excpetion where a minor is tried as an adult for something serious like murder

      I don't know how rare it may be, but I don't care. there is something fundamentally flawed with people who say out of one side of their face that a 15 year old is too unsophisticated to decide that they want to suck cocks, then from the other side of their face say that an 8 year old knew exactly what he was doing when he killed someone. it's perverted and obscene.

  14. What about legitimate uses? by 0x537461746943 · · Score: 1

    While I have never used the software mentioned... It does sound like I would use something like it eventually. I would install that on my kids systems when they get old enough that I allow them to use them unattended in a heartbeat for monitoring. All cellphones usually have an audio recorder. Should all phone makers also be arrested for selling devices that can record conversations without notification to others that they are being recorded? There should already be laws that can apply to be people for using devices like this illegally. They should be the target... not software that still has useful purposes. Should we arrest hammer makers, knife makers, email software developers, because their software can and is used for nefarious purposes?

    1. Re:What about legitimate uses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in newbamamerica, you have no rights or freedoms.

      get used to eating slop with your fingers.

    2. Re:What about legitimate uses? by Virtucon · · Score: 2

      If you don't trust your kids then you have a more serious issue. You can see if there's a problem just by looking at the phone bill. Kids will be kids but you have to lead by example so they don't get themselves into a situation that could compromise their privacy or security.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    3. Re:What about legitimate uses? by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

      in newbamamerica, you have no rights or freedoms.

      If you think even for a *second* that this would not have happened during the prior administrations, or that the majority of damage to your freedoms had not already been done prior to Obama's terms, you really should see someone about that brain tumor, because it's made you into a flaming idiot.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    4. Re:What about legitimate uses? by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Should we arrest hammer makers, knife makers, email software developers, because their software can and is used for nefarious purposes?

      They are working at it...

    5. Re:What about legitimate uses? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Your kids are going to hate you and rebel so badly. I had a friend who monitored his son like this. The son ended up going to jail.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    6. Re:What about legitimate uses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Section 12. Whoever manufactures or causes to be manufactured, or sells or exposes for sale, an instrument or weapon of the kind usually known as a dirk knife, a switch knife or any knife having an automatic spring release device by which the blade is released from the handle, having a blade of over one and one-half inches or a device or case which enables a knife with a locking blade to be drawn at a locked position, any ballistic knife, or any knife with a detachable blade capable of being propelled by any mechanism, slung shot, sling shot, bean blower, sword cane, pistol cane, bludgeon, blackjack, nunchaku, zoobow, also known as klackers or kung fu sticks, or any similar weapon consisting of two sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather, a shuriken or any similar pointed starlike object intended to injure a person when thrown, or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends; or metallic knuckles or knuckles of any other substance which could be put to the same use and with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles, shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months; provided, however, that sling shots may be manufactured and sold to clubs or associations conducting sporting events where such sling shots are used.

      You were saying?

    7. Re:What about legitimate uses? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...

      and no it doesn't apply to hammer makers, knife makers, phone makers, or of course to the government (don't you love it when they give themselves an explicit pass)

    8. Re:What about legitimate uses? by kenshin33 · · Score: 1

      android device manager? Cerberus? and anything that "find my phone" would yield in the play store would do more or less the same thing.

    9. Re:What about legitimate uses? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Nice try, but the current administration has done more than any previous administration to expand it's intrusive power, even after heavily campaigning on doing exactly the opposite, and even while all the while claiming terrorism is on the wane.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    10. Re:What about legitimate uses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. And here are my links to prove it:

    11. Re:What about legitimate uses? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      the current administration has done more than any previous administration to expand it's[sic] intrusive power

      No, sorry. Nothing's been done during Obama's terms that even remotely compare with the instantiation of the PATRIOT act and the TSA as far as harmful changes to the previously existing state of affairs by the government.

      And then during Obama's terms, we've seen the drug war lighten up on marijuana, we've seen expansions of gay rights, we've seen increased rights and capabilities for consumers and less for credit card companies, access to Cuba has opened up, private sector spaceflight has been encouraged...

      Obama's got his warts, all right -- constitutionally speaking, the man seems to be insane -- but on the scale of making life worse for all of us, he's done nothing even close, singly or in aggregate, to measuring up to the Bush/Cheney administration's insults to the body politic.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    12. Re:What about legitimate uses? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Has he not [i]expanded [/i]the Patriot Act? Are we not lamenting some new loss of freedom daily here at slashdot? What about the NSA run amuck? The DEA may have lightened up a bit on pot but now they're cracking down on codeine and anything remotely related, as schedule 2, effective Oct 6.
      How about the NDAA? Now he can kill American citizens without warrant or investigation, legally; Bush couldn't do that.
      But the main thing is, Obama campaigned so heavily on transparency, and lighting up the "police state", yet he's done the exact opposite. Even more inexcusable, since he's claimed AQ to be decimated and terrorism to be on the wane. Then what's the excuse? At least Bush was reacting to 9/11.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  15. They Going to Arrest GM's CEO and Board? by theodp · · Score: 1
    1. Re:They Going to Arrest GM's CEO and Board? by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that all you need is a big sign, "Audio In Vehicle Is Recorded."

  16. What's a father to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Clearly, these people do not have teenage daughters.

  17. What law did he break? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This could be useful for parents monitoring their kid's phones.

  18. Hypocrisy knows no limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where, as long as you are law enforcement or a three letter agency, this sort of behavior is perfectly fine.

    However, let the little people start playing the same game, and folks lose their minds . . . . . lol

  19. Re:Next Gun Manufacturers by Sauce+Tin · · Score: 1

    They've already gone towards gun manufacturers, scientists, and engineers?

  20. Copyright Infringement? by ClarkMills · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't this be copyright infringement?
    This is CIA / DHS / GCSB IP, no.

    1. Re:Copyright Infringement? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      If they developed it it's owned by the US public presumably. If they bought it from one of the trustworthy vendors out there then they probably just have a license.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  21. Re:Can't let anybody but the NSA have the GOOD toy by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    What kind of idiot would approve of someone stalking them?

  22. Re: feminists controll the law! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Men shall be punished, for existing!

    No idiot they are punished for stalking.

    Let me fix that for you:

    No, idiots are punished for stalking.

    People of both sexes lose it and stalk their bosses, their co-workers, family members, classmates and teachers, the clerk working at the local store ... makes no difference what gender or sex the stalker or stalkee are - the stalker is an idiot. Anyone who buys this crap is an idiot. And no, being a "helicopter parent" isn't an exception.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  23. Obvious answer by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That'd be the American public you're asking about.

    When congress decided to shove the PATRIOT act up everyone's colon, lubricated only by a healthy dose of TSA, all the American public did was enquire how far they should bend over. They're still bent over. The majority likes it that way. Because fear. Unreasonable, agit-prop and ignorance based fear.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  24. But... the children!? by aztracker1 · · Score: 2

    My first thought was "but... the children!?" ... I would think that the primary marketing for such software would be for parents. Not that I condone such actions, at the very least it would be socially acceptable.

    --
    Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    1. Re:But... the children!? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My first thought was "but... the children!?" ... I would think that the primary marketing for such software would be for parents. Not that I condone such actions, at the very least it would be socially acceptable.

      Not really. People are fed up with parents that are so insecure in their parenting skills that they're hovering around almost 100% of the time - they're called "helicopter parents" for a reason, and like real helicopters, people in the immediate neighborhood of one don't exactly appreciate their nuisance factor.

      Does anyone want to be one of "those parents?" Do you want your kids hanging around with the kids of one of "those parents" as they listen to everything your kids say and then gossip about how bad, how clueless parents you are? Or call CPS on you because they freaked out over something out of context?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:But... the children!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a parent but if I was I wouldn't even buy my kid a 'smart phone', at least not as a default. Just a phone that can be used to talk on, that's all that a 'child' needs. Beyond that they'd have to demonstrate that they 'deserve the responsibility' just like owning a car because at that point they are 'growing in to adult hood' and just like a car they'd have to demonstrate that they can handle such responsibility. O, and involvement in a kids life is not 'hovering', parents SHOULD be involved in their children's lives, otherwise 'What they heck is the freakin' point?". Though of course like everything there's likely a fine line between 'being involved' and 'hovering unnecessarily'.

    3. Re:But... the children!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As an IT tech who has been REQUESTED to install this software on clients' childrens' devices the summary seems to leave out one vital fact: It does need Administrative rights to install in the first place. That means access to the iTunes account and/or administrator access on Android. This typically will mean physical access to the device in the first place. It *IS* marketed to paranoid parents and bosses for monitoring children/employees. So unless your stalker is STEALING your phone to install it, you only have to worry about family members..

    4. Re:But... the children!? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I just thought of CIA.

      like, they buy software to do this, yet FBI is blocking this company from operating. so what the fuck?

      obviously using it should be illegal for all parties though, unless you somehow tell the user that it's there and are paying for it somehow to be there..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:But... the children!? by MurukeshM · · Score: 1

      you only have to worry about family members..

      Like spouses?

    6. Re: But... the children!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm not a parent but if I was..."

      Right there is where you should have stopped talking about how you would parent. Frankly, the parenting choices you think you would make in your idealized hypothetical are probably only marginally related to what you will do when faced with the actual reality. Who your child is makes a big difference in what is right for them, and your basing your advice on who? Your made up kid who isn't real?

      No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.

    7. Re:But... the children!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone want to be one of "those parents?"

      I want to be one of those "helicopter" parents. I see the other parents, nose stuck to a cellphone, or chatting with their friends, while their kids dumpster dive out back of the medical facility. I want to be involved. I want to know what my kids are doing. Who they're with. Where they are going. Then again, I've got some special-needs kids, autism, who don't understand danger and tend to walk into the street without looking. They've been known to walk into strangers houses to play in their closets. We've had a number of incidents, with police involvement, involving bolting where they take off for sites miles away and get lost. Lately we've been having problems with the school district involving bullying and abuse.

      Yes, I can see a real market for this software!

    8. Re:But... the children!? by almitydave · · Score: 1

      Does anyone want to be one of "those parents?"

      I want to be one of those "helicopter" parents. I see the other parents, nose stuck to a cellphone, or chatting with their friends, while their kids dumpster dive out back of the medical facility. I want to be involved. I want to know what my kids are doing. Who they're with. Where they are going.

      That's not "helicopter" parenting, that's basic paying-attention parenting. A "helicopter" parent is one who tries to micromanage their children's lives; using your examples, organize everything your kids do, choose their friends, accompany them everywhere, supervise constantly, yell at teacher for giving them a C grade, remove all potential adversity and risk of injury, etc. The use of "helicopter" is supposed to invoke the image of hovering constantly overhead.

      It's actually a quite harmful way to raise children, as they don't learn the critical skills to deal with life - how to deal with failure, overcoming obstacles on their own, the freedom to develop their own interests; in general self-reliance and resilience.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    9. Re:But... the children!? by DeVilla · · Score: 1

      In a day and age where parents have had the police and children's services called on them letting their kids play outside, this seems to be against the times. We are expected to keep our kids confined and under surveillance at all times or we are unfit parents.

  25. Re:Can't let anybody but the NSA have the GOOD toy by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why don't you think of the children.

    Seriously, this should have been marketed as a way to keep tabs on your precious little gem. There are already products out there that do similar functionality like nanny cams, locator watches and so on.

  26. Re:Can't let anybody but the NSA have the GOOD toy by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What kind of idiot would approve of someone stalking them?

    Voters.

  27. Re: feminists controll the law! by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Firstly, reliance on anecdotal evidence alone is succumbing to a logical fallacy. Secondly, demonstrate that these women somehow get a "blanket pass" or even your anecdotal evidence holds no weight.

  28. Okay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's the arrest and indictment of the CEO of FinFisher?

    Fuck the US DOJ.

  29. Re:Can't let anybody but the NSA have the GOOD toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What on earth makes you think approval has to come from the person actually being spied on?!?
    The arbitrators of rights wear robed and suits and live in court rooms and other government buildings.
    You're getting quite uppity there, citizen, if you're forgetting who your masters are.
    You need some fine time in a re-edjumacation camp.

  30. Re:Next Gun Manufacturers by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

    Next? Where have you been?

  31. FINFET?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about the makers of FINFet, and going past that,
    what about the makers of malware detection kits that are supposed to find this stuff?

    Who's really making money now?

    1. Re:FINFET?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US DOJ does not know who FINFet is or lobbied itself...

  32. Re:feminists controll the law! by davydagger · · Score: 2

    any by existing you mean "playing NSA at home for fun and profit".

    some feminists can be asshats, but sweet shit. Even if you don't like them, at least admit they are right on this one.

    Personally, I think this software should remain legal, just so everyone knows what a secret wiretap of your phone is capable of, and why its really really really bad, and an inviation for abuse.

  33. Re: feminists controll the law! by davydagger · · Score: 1

    No one is saying that. We are saying that there is commericial software that is basicly an invitation for abuse, that for a couple bucks lets anyone play NSA, law enforcement at their most depraved and stalk, harrass and intimidate people by hi-jacking their devices.

    somehow its about feminism. are you fucking daft?

  34. NPR covered this topic recently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was just going to comment at NPR that this was covered recently at /.

  35. Re: feminists controll the law! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Depends on the culture, he may not be wrong...

  36. requires jailbreaking by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

    it's important to note - for iphones, the app only works if the phone is jailbroken and if you have physical possession of the device and if you have the device/icloud password. also there's no jailbreak currently available for iOS 8, and considering that iOS 8 is on over half of iOS devices, you'll quite easily be SOL.

    also worth noting that not only this tool but all of the NSA type tools we've learned about require the iOS to be jailbroken first. A good argument for not jailbreaking in my book.

    1. Re:requires jailbreaking by mythosaz · · Score: 0

      It's safe inside the walled garden? :)

    2. Re:requires jailbreaking by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      you lulz but yes, it's true

    3. Re:requires jailbreaking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that the iPhone needs jailbreaking makes these tools practically unusable for iOS devices. It always takes a while for jailbreaks to be found and made easily repeatable by normal people. During this time, almost always there is a new iOS version released that breaks the last jailbreak. Sometimes before major releases there is a few months where the jailbreak is valid for the latest release (e.g. iOS 7.1.2). So as an iPhone user, you just need to be timely in your upgrades and you will almost always be safe from this type of spyware. This is because once a new iOS version is released and you upgrade, your stalker has to once again jail break your device and reinstall the software. You just have to notice the pattern of every time you upgrade, your stalker just happens to need to use your phone for a bit. He or she might also try to dissuade you from upgrading your iOS version.

  37. Don't say it... by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

    Moral of this story if your going to sell apps intended for nefarious purposes you should advertise only "legitimate" and not illegal uses of said app and demonstrate a legitimate convincing use case.

    In the real world it is hard to understand how this translates into good policy or in any way works to improve society.

    You can arrest the low hanging fruit of loud mouths yet doing so will cause remaining sellers of functionally equivalent software now and in the future to change descriptions to avoid arrest and buyers to moderate keywords they use to locate desired software.

    Nothing is actually changed and being arrested for technicalities does not "send a message" it is an exercise in futility and waste of taxpayer resources.

    1. Re:Don't say it... by martas · · Score: 1

      What's the alternative? Don't go after anyone doing anything illegal, because there might be ways for others to get away with it? Yes, there might be copies of this that are advertised more covertly, and hell, if a stalker is sufficiently motivated they can learn to code and make the software themselves, but part of the point of going after low hanging fruit is that it is also the low hanging fruit for people intending to do something illegal. I for one think it's a good thing if a potential stalker has to work a bit harder to accomplish their goal than going to the play store and searching "stalk my girlfriend".

    2. Re:Don't say it... by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      What's the alternative? Don't go after anyone doing anything illegal, because there might be ways for others to get away with it?

      The alternative is simply focus on those actually conducting illegal activities rather than those producing dual-use tools.

      I for one think it's a good thing if a potential stalker has to work a bit harder to accomplish their goal than going to the play store and searching "stalk my girlfriend".

      Changing a few words in search term does not constitute a serious barrier to entry.

    3. Re:Don't say it... by martas · · Score: 1

      But providing tools mainly designed for illegal use is itself illegal, so they are going after someone conducting illegal activities.

    4. Re:Don't say it... by cfsops · · Score: 1

      I see nothing that suggests this software was "intended for nefarious purposes". going to their website, all I see are descriptions of legitimate use.

  38. Maybe It Should Be legal by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    A parent might be able to better protect a child with this kind of software. And it might also catch a lot of criminals as well. To me if the end user misuses the product it is all on the end user and not on the company that sold the software. It is like selling a pistol. Thank God we can own a good pistol. It is up to the buyer to use than pistol legally . Whiskey is another similar item. We can't blame the distillers if people drink irresponsibly. So why this special attitude in regard to software?

    1. Re:Maybe It Should Be legal by davydagger · · Score: 1

      >A parent might be able to better protect a child with this kind of software.

      more likely they'll creep on their kid until he goes insane. I think the sad reality, is we've sold our nation's parents "there is something wrong with your kid", and "your children aren't safe" so fucking hard to push a whole bunch of worthless commericial products, and very harmful political ideas down our throats.

      We need to just stop. The kids where fine before hand. They'll be fine. If we really want to do what is best for our nation's children, its stop making mountains out of molehills, and just relax. Many, if not most of the crazy things we concoct to "protect the children" do far more harm than good.

    2. Re:Maybe It Should Be legal by BeeArt · · Score: 1

      You can't kill someone else with _just_ whiskey. And if they are only protected by keeping track of their every movement and thought, you better prepare to outlive your children. You want to keep them safe? Talk to them and prepare them for the world.

  39. Re:Can't let anybody but the NSA have the GOOD toy by davydagger · · Score: 1

    the NSA obviously. Just about half the people on the "terrorist" watch list who have no known links to terrorism. Or any "terrorists" who've been enganging in non-violent terrorist behavior, take notice.

    But that spyware is classified officially, and still legal. I guess big brother doesn't like competition.

  40. Re: feminists controll the law! by kelemvor4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No one is saying that. We are saying that there is commericial software that is basicly an invitation for abuse, that for a couple bucks lets anyone play NSA, law enforcement at their most depraved and stalk, harrass and intimidate people by hi-jacking their devices. somehow its about feminism. are you fucking daft?

    Next we should go after Apple and Microsoft. It's well established that 98.28% of all electronic stalkers, harassers, and domestic abusers used either Windows or osx to do it.

    What the fuck is wrong with the world that the seller of a tool can be arrested because some customer chooses to use it for nefarious purposes. I sure hope people don't start using cars to commit crimes because I like having a car. Oh wait...

  41. Offensive by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is something offensive about saying these kinds of activities are perfectly fine for representatives of the State, yet illegal for the citizens of the State.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Offensive by davydagger · · Score: 1

      these kinds of activities are perfectly fine for nobody.

  42. ok, next up by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    ...I know, old and tired argument, but when are they going to start arresting automakers for causing traffic fatalities?

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    1. Re:ok, next up by oobayly · · Score: 1

      The argument may be tired because it keeps being dragged out. it's certainly not tired of being incorrect though. I'd like to see a world where it can retire in peace, living out its days in a wicker chair with a rug over it's legs telling the youth "you've never had it so good".

  43. Re: feminists controll the law! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what about the NSA?

  44. Re:Can't let anybody but the NSA have the GOOD toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Obama said he'd put a stop to this. I'm sure he'll get around to it pretty soon....

    right?

  45. That business model sounds familiar. by evo2 · · Score: 1

    Is the company Apple?

  46. Slippery slope by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    By this same logic shouldn't we be arresting the CEO of baseball bat companies because someone could use one to assault someone, not to mention say gun manufacturers, knife companies etc...

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:Slippery slope by BeeArt · · Score: 1

      I guess it all boils down to the intended use. But I agree, it's a slippery slope indeed. I mean you can argue about the intended use of a baseball bat or a knife, and I think that depends mostly on the user. But the intended use for a gun is, well, throwing a projectile at a target, you can only argue about the intended target.

    2. Re:Slippery slope by fche · · Score: 1

      "you can only argue about the intended target"

      That also depends mostly on the user.

  47. Or put another way by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    Intent matters in the law. There are things that can be legal or illegal depending on the intent behind it. This can apply to tools as well as actions. If you sell a tool for legitimate uses, you are generally fine even if the tool has some illegitimate uses too. So long as your actions, as in marketing and such, show that you intend it for legit uses, you are fine.

    A good example would be all the fine burglary tools for sale at Home Depot. A large number of the tools they sell would work very well for breaking in to houses or cars. However it is very clear that isn't why they sell them, nor why 99.99% of their customers buy them. Not only do the tools have a substantial legitimate use, but that it what all their marketing is about. They don't try to convince you that you need a hammer drill because you could drill open most locks, they try to convince you that you need a hammer drill because you want to put up shelves in concrete or the like. They intend their tools to be used for legitimate activities.

    The more shady the product, the more careful you'd better be about how you sell it because the easier it could show intent to have it used for criminal purposes. If it looks like you are just paying lip service to legit uses but really trying to sell your stuff for illegal uses, you are likely to get in trouble.

    1. Re:Or put another way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Case in point, I got a lot of odd looks when requesting an auto-glass breaker.

      I had just seen the Mythbusters showing how hard it is to escape from a sinking car (differential pressure prevents doors or windows from operating), and they had shown that breaking the glass was one of the few ways out. I wanted to get a pair of glass breakers for my wife and myself, but nearly everywhere I went I got accused of being a vandal for requesting such a device. Its a bit sad that they feared I was a 30 year old car vandal, but that seemed to be what they thought*.

      * I'm even white, so I can't even imagine what someone of color would have to go through.

    2. Re:Or put another way by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      The very similar software 'Spector Pro' does the same thing, but is strongly marketed for "monitoring your children" even though the product is used 99% by suspicious spouses and control-freak bosses. I don't expect they will have any legal problems because of their marketing. A few years back they removed the ability to do a "remote covert install" likely because it crossed that line of intent. (remote convert install means it sends an email with a fake attachment "hey look at this picture of the kids playing soccer" which was actually the installation EXE or a trojan that installed itself via an exploit.)

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    3. Re:Or put another way by cfsops · · Score: 1

      interesting. when I was in a volunteer fd many years ago, we just used spring-loaded center punches for car rear windows. for larger glass, like a plate-glass door or window, we used the pick end of a pick-axe.

  48. News flash for you by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    If you set foot in a country, they can arrest you for violating their laws. Doesn't matter if you aren't a citizen and live overseas. If you come there, they can arrest you. So let's say you regularly trash Islam and the Ayatollah and are well known for this. Then you travel to Iran. They very well can arrest you for that. They can't do much if you don't go there but if you show up, they can grab you.

    Now in terms of if this particular arrest is legit for the American legal system, almost certainly. Doesn't matter that he was living in a foreign country. If he sold something that is illegal to Americans and using American services, he broke American law. Doesn't matter if he wasn't in America at the time, you don't have to be in a country to break their law. Let me give you a couple examples of how one can easily break a country's law from another country:

    1) Ordering someone murdered. Let's say you have yourself a little gang with members in a few countries. You don't like someone over in Sweden so you order one of your Swedish members to murder them. That person broke Swedish law, but so did you. Doesn't matter you weren't there, you orchestrated a murder, that's illegal, and if they can get their hands on you you'll stand trial for it (the US would happily extradite you for that).

    2) You set up a gun smuggling business for Canadians. You go and buy guns that are legal in the US, but illegal in Canada. You have them smuggled up and warehoused there, and then sell them to Canadians. You've broken Canadian law. Even if you are operating everything out of the US, what you are doing isn't legal in Canada and that's where it is being done. You house the guns in Canada and sell them to Canadians, that makes it a Canadian issue (you'd get extradited for that too).

    So if this dude is selling his shit from AWS, to Americans, the courts will have no problems with the claim that American law applies.

    1. Re:News flash for you by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      If you set foot in a country, they can arrest you for violating their laws. Doesn't matter if you aren't a citizen and live overseas. If you come there, they can arrest you. So let's say you regularly trash Islam and the Ayatollah and are well known for this. Then you travel to Iran. They very well can arrest you for that. They can't do much if you don't go there but if you show up, they can grab you.

      Actually, most countries will prosecute you only for things you did in that country (including things that take effect in the country), with very few exceptions, and I have no reason to believe that Iran would be different.

    2. Re:News flash for you by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      How is this different from an American going to a foreign country, buying a stuff that's perfectly legal over there, and illegally importing it back to the US? Is the seller at fault here? Your examples feel quite contrived to me - by your logic, people offering software with strong crypto to download are wanted criminals in countries where strong crypto is illegal unless they do everything they can to prevent people from those countries from downloading it.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  49. Why go to America? by Meneth · · Score: 1

    One wonder why this guy would travel to America if he knew he could get arrested for his business. Only thing I can think of was that he actually didn't know it was illegal. Relevant law: Title 18,United States Code, Section 2512(l)(b) (sale of an interception device).

    1. Re:Why go to America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The part we should all "love" is this...

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2512

      (3) It shall not be unlawful under this section to advertise for sale a device described in subsection (1) of this section if the advertisement is mailed, sent, or carried in interstate or foreign commerce solely to a domestic provider of wire or electronic communication service or to an agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof which is duly authorized to use such device.

  50. Re: feminists controll the law! by Your.Master · · Score: 1

    Read the article. This software was "expressly designed for use by stalkers and domestic abusers". Apple and Microsoft have not expressly designed anything for those purposes.

  51. Feminists need to be hunted down and murdered. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They need to be killed. Millions of men are in prison because of them. Countries are invaded because of not caving to their beliefs.

    They need to be extinguished as if they were witches.

    They are a cartel to stop men from going after young women and young girls.
    (A right of men).

    They need to be exterminated.

  52. Shooting the messenger ... by golodh · · Score: 1
    It's quite OK to mass-produce cellphones that can be tapped and controlled in this way.

    But apparently it's not OK to sell software to allow people to use their perfectly ordinary cellphone to pick up other conversations from its vicinity.

    How about securing the transmissions of cellphones instead of prosecuting someone for doing the obvious?

  53. Re:Can't let anybody but the NSA have the GOOD toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who did you vote for? The guy who said he would expand powers, or the guy who said he would curtail powers but then expanded them?
     
    Your choice is defined by the options given to you; Left and Right have the same agenda, and they both are to curtail personal freedom in favour of corporate interests. Your, and largely the West's, slant of democracy is really Hobson's Choice in a pretty wrapper.

  54. I feel sorry for these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They feel that if they suck up to the eavesdropping, spying NSA by doing the same thing, that they'll get into their favour. They're just competition that needs to be crushed. NSA doesn't want middle men to pay off, they just eat these guys.

  55. Re: feminists controll the law! by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

    Next we should go after Apple and Microsoft. It's well established that 98.28% of all electronic stalkers, harassers, and domestic abusers used either Windows or osx to do it.

    What the fuck is wrong with the world that the seller of a tool can be arrested because some customer chooses to use it for nefarious purposes. I sure hope people don't start using cars to commit crimes because I like having a car. Oh wait...

    I can't imagine how your post could get insightful. I guess, so many people do not read TFA but rather throw in their opinion.

    Your analogy fails. Now let me give you another one. Let say someone is selling bombs (not kits or tools, but ready-to-use bomb). Do you think it is wrong to arrest the person because his/her customer chooses to use it for nefarious purposes? My example is a bit extreme but you should get the picture why this software, which could do harm more than good, would get you arrested.

    If I remember correctly, a similar app was offered in a show "Shark Tank" called "Cate apps" or something similar. The apps has very similar functionality in the sense that it can intercept the incoming message or phone call on your own phone, so that others but you would not see. They gave a new name as "Cheater" apps. However, this app goes even further than that. It can intercept both incoming and outgoing (see quote below) many things: Call Recording, Call Interception, Recorded Surroundings, Electronic Mail, SMS, Voicemail, Contacts, Photos, Videos, Appointments. Once the phone has been installed with the app, you can monitor all of those without having the phone!

    The app was designed with numerous functionalities that permitted it to intercept a variety of both outgoing and incoming wire and electronic transmissions to and from the smartphone on which it was installed.

    I understand that many people (including myself) want "freedom," but the real "freedom" does not come with privacy and/or security. Unless you live alone in the middle of no where and completely no interaction with others in anyway, you have to pick the scale between freedom and privacy/security.

  56. I thought the Supreme Court already ruled on this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about his sincerely held religious beliefs that creating and distributing spyware is a moral requirement? I'm sure there are more than a few believers at NSA and CIA...

  57. bad man by bloff.sites · · Score: 1

    He should have known that 'monitoring calls, texts, videos and other communications on mobile phones without detection' is a privilege reserved to government agencies.

  58. Re:Can't let anybody but the NSA have the GOOD toy by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

    I voted third party, it clearly doesn't matter whether you vote R or D, they're still stripping our freedoms, increasing taxes and sending us off to war. At that point there's no harm in sending my vote to a third party.

  59. Facebook & Google Stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this the same or similar software that Google and Facebook use to allow Marketers and Advertisers to stalk me?

  60. Re: feminists controll the law! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next we should go after Apple and Microsoft. It's well established that 98.28% of all electronic stalkers, harassers, and domestic abusers used either Windows or osx to do it.

    What the fuck is wrong with the world that the seller of a tool can be arrested because some customer chooses to use it for nefarious purposes. I sure hope people don't start using cars to commit crimes because I like having a car. Oh wait...

    I can't imagine how your post could get insightful. I guess, so many people do not read TFA but rather throw in their opinion.

    Your analogy fails. Now let me give you another one. Let say someone is selling bombs (not kits or tools, but ready-to-use bomb). Do you think it is wrong to arrest the person because his/her customer chooses to use it for nefarious purposes? My example is a bit extreme but you should get the picture why this software, which could do harm more than good, would get you arrested.

    There are several legitimate places to buy dynamite (assuming you live in the US).

  61. Re: feminists controll the law! by martas · · Score: 1

    What the fuck is wrong with the world that the seller of a tool can be arrested because some customer chooses to use it for nefarious purposes. I sure hope people don't start using cars to commit crimes because I like having a car.

    If ever a time comes when cars are designed specifically to be ideal tools for killing, raping, stealing, assaulting, extorting, kidnapping, committing fraud, and/or burglarizing, you can bet your ass that they will be banned, and the few people who use them for travel and not anything illegal will be SOL, as it should be. However, as long as committing a crime is a niche use of cars, you don't have anything to worry about.

  62. As expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the State has declared that it has monopoly over spying on citizens, any citizen. And will pursue anyone threatening that monopoly.

    Figures. Can't let the sheeple get too smart. Makes them harder to herd and control.

  63. Not all spyware is bad! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parents can use spyware to keep tabs on a teen with a drug problem or find out their kid is getting bullied and step in before their kid commits suicide.

    Bottom line... Software is free speech. You outlaw the criminals acts, not the tools they use. Start attacking the first amendment, then it will be the second, and then swiftly followed by the fourth.

    Maybe some of these liberals should practice a more liberal use of their second amendment before encouraging our elected idiots into attacking the first.

  64. Years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was an infomecial product that was basically a high-powered directional hearing-aid. The ad showed it being used for all sorts of things like watching teevee without having to crank the volume... using it at sports events to hear calls on the field & etc.

    However one of the things they showed it being used for was eavesdropping on the neighbors.

    IIRC after a few lawsuits they had to take that part out of the ad... but continued selling the product.

  65. Re:Can't let anybody but the NSA have the GOOD toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So lets lock up the automobile manufacturers, did you know mor stalkers drive cars to stalk there victims?

  66. software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    shouldn't that say stalkers, domestic abusers, and the US government?

  67. Re:Can't let anybody but the NSA have the GOOD toy by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

    Don't blame me. I voted Kodos.

  68. Sounds like software for responsible parents by rhyous · · Score: 1

    It might have other uses, but it sounds like software for use by responsible parents monitoring their 11 year old that they just gave a phone too.

    The parents not only have the right, but some might say the duty, to monitor such underage phone users at all those levels.

  69. You stalk by ac posts + sockpuppets Barb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By ac harassing posts + multiple sockpuppets he/she keeps on /. FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p... :

    "HOWTO: trolling the hosts file guy in one easy step The next time you see a post by him, just reply anonymously. And to really mess with his head, reply anonymously to your anonymous post, disagreeing with your first anon post (extra points if you claim in the second post that you're him - that REALLY sets him off)." - by tomhudson (43916) barbara.hudson@ ... a - h u dson.com on Saturday April 16, 2011 @01:38PM (#35841122) Journal

    Gosh - TomHudson, look @ that email address on that post (BarbaraHudson, anyone?), 1st of all - Secondly:

    So - Isn't that *EXACTLY* what you're doing here with all the AC posts libeling me calling me a pedo, which I am NOT?

    Sure is, see below:

    ---

    BarbaraHudson by AC #1 calling me a pedo -> http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    BarbaraHudson by AC #2 disagreeing calling me a pedo -> http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    ---

    First stating I am, & then NOT, via ac posts??

    I don't *think* you "GET IT", do you??? I've got YOU, completely 'clocked' cyclops... & YOUR OWN WORDS DO YOU IN, every time... lol, since I'm NOT a "pedophile", you transsexual weirdo!

    APK

    P.S.=> Barb/Tom (whatever, with multiple sockpuppets too http://slashdot.org/~BarbaraHu... = http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson... +http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2C+not+Barbie ) you've destroyed yourself yet again...

    ... apk

  70. Re: feminists controll the law! by Talderas · · Score: 1

    I think they expressly designed their hardware and software to auto-sodomize you.

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  71. Re:You stalk by ac posts + sockpuppets Barb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What were you hoping to gain by making the exact same post a second time?

  72. Re: feminists controll the law! by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    No logical fallacy if I am making statement from personal experience about female stalking those I know; you could argue whether it is a lie or true.

    The "blanket pass" is tendency I observe in US culture.

  73. Re: feminists control the law! by dl_sledding · · Score: 1

    I understand that many people (including myself) want "freedom," but the real "freedom" does not come with privacy and/or security. Unless you live alone in the middle of no where and completely no interaction with others in anyway, you have to pick the scale between freedom and privacy/security.

    This comment is so wrong in so many ways. True freedom includes all the privacy and security the citizen desires for himself, his family, and his community. Freedom and security are not opposite sides of a coin, they harmonize and reinforce the other.

    There's a fundamental untruth being propagated by the U.S. government (by the left and right equally), that personal security can only be achieved by the gov't, and freedom and privacy of the citizens are the cost of that security. This is not only a lie, but also an abuse of power over the U.S. citizen. However, there are enough voters that have decided to believe this, and it is costing each and every person of this country their constitutionally guaranteed liberties.

    How can you be free, if you don't have security? How can you be secure, if you aren't granted freedom (the definition of liberty)? Were the slaves of 18th and 19th century America "secure"? They certainly were not free, and they certainly did not have any security or privacy in their lives! However, freedom, security, and privacy all require action and personal responsibility, and the typical American today shuns those concepts. People would rather receive handouts and allow Supermom (the U.S. Gov't) to take care of them, protect them, control them, and make the decisions for them, because the alternative is "too hard" or "too expensive".

  74. Re: feminists controll the law! by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    Read the article. This software was "expressly designed for use by stalkers and domestic abusers". Apple and Microsoft have not expressly designed anything for those purposes.

    Re read the article. You are quoting the US DOJ statement, not what the company or persons in question have said. If you go to the cached version of the stealthgenie website (since the real one is gone) that is not the case. They were marketing it to employers and parents of teens.

    Regardless of your opinion on that matter, the statement you quoted appears to be a falsification.

  75. Run outta sockpuppet modpoints, Barb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Must be. No downmod this time from your many sockpuppets accounts http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson... + http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2... = http://slashdot.org/~BarbaraHu...

  76. Re: feminists control the law! by un1nsp1red · · Score: 1

    How can you be free, if you don't have security? How can you be secure, if you aren't granted freedom (the definition of liberty)?

    How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

  77. What has just been accomplished? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before this is going viral, the market is going to be saturated with similar apps, somebody creates one "Open Source"? Something tells me the "law" is not gonna win this one...