Slashdot Mirror
The Kronos Indictment: Is it a Crime To Create and Sell Malware? (washingtonpost.com)
Marcus Hutchins, the 23-year-old British security researcher who was credited with stopping the WannaCry outbreak in its tracks by discovering a hidden "kill switch" for the malware, was arrested by the FBI over his alleged involvement in separate malicious software targeting bank accounts. According to an indictment released by the US Department of Justice on Thursday, Hutchins is accused of having helped to create, spread and maintain the banking trojan Kronos between 2014 and 2015. Hutchins, who is indicted with another unnamed co-defendant, stands accused of six counts of hacking-related crimes as a result of his alleged involvement with Kronos. A preliminary analysis of those counts suggest that the government will face significant legal challenges. Orin Kerr, the Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor at The George Washington University Law School, writes: The indictment asserts that Hutchins created the malware and an unnamed co-conspirator took the lead in selling it. The indictment charges a slew of different crimes for that: (1) conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; (2) three counts of violating 18 U.S.C. 2512, which prohibits selling and advertising wiretapping devices; (3) a count of wiretapping; and (4) a count of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act through accomplice liability -- basically, aiding and abetting a hacking crime. Do the charges hold up? Just based on a first look at the case, my sense is that the government's theory of the case is fairly aggressive. It will lead to some significant legal challenges. It's hard to say, at this point, how those challenges will play out. The indictment is pretty bare-bones, and we don't have all the facts or even what the government thinks are the facts.
Count one: If I understand it correctly, the government is saying that the act of selling the malware -- distributing it to a third party -- was the act of causing computer damage. In effect, the government treats the selling of the malware as a use of the malware to damage a computer. It's saying Hutchins and X conspired (formed an agreement) to send off the program (distributing it to the buyer) intending to cause damage (eventually, albeit indirectly, when the buyer later used it to cause damage). I have never seen Section 1030(a)(5)(A) used that way before. And for the charge to fit the statute, the government has to prove two things that it may or may not be able to prove.
Counts Two, Three and Four: The 2512 Charges: Counts two, three and four all allege violations of 18 U.S.C. 2512. Section 2512 is a rarely used law that criminalizes making, selling or advertising for sale illegal wiretapping devices. The basic idea is to deter wiretapping by interfering with the market in wiretapping devices. [...] One legal issue raised by these charges is whether software alone counts as a "device" under Section 2512. Section 2510(5) defines an "electronic, mechanical, or other device" as "any device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication" subject to some exclusions not relevant here.
Count one: If I understand it correctly, the government is saying that the act of selling the malware -- distributing it to a third party -- was the act of causing computer damage. In effect, the government treats the selling of the malware as a use of the malware to damage a computer. It's saying Hutchins and X conspired (formed an agreement) to send off the program (distributing it to the buyer) intending to cause damage (eventually, albeit indirectly, when the buyer later used it to cause damage). I have never seen Section 1030(a)(5)(A) used that way before. And for the charge to fit the statute, the government has to prove two things that it may or may not be able to prove.
Counts Two, Three and Four: The 2512 Charges: Counts two, three and four all allege violations of 18 U.S.C. 2512. Section 2512 is a rarely used law that criminalizes making, selling or advertising for sale illegal wiretapping devices. The basic idea is to deter wiretapping by interfering with the market in wiretapping devices. [...] One legal issue raised by these charges is whether software alone counts as a "device" under Section 2512. Section 2510(5) defines an "electronic, mechanical, or other device" as "any device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication" subject to some exclusions not relevant here.
I'll say yes, just like it's a crime to set booby traps for people.
Even if you don't execute it? What line of code is against the law? What about distributing samples of malware?
If I was a creator of Adobe Flash, I'd be worried right now.
I don't know... some people seem to think that treasonously colluding with a hostile foreign adversary's attack on your country isn't a crime.
Even if it's a crime, it's not treason if they are an ally, even if they are only an ally on paper.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Article 1: Google "charged for writing a virus" - it seems there's bunch of established case law on charging people for writing and distributing malware.
Articles 2-4: Don't be confused by the word blizzard. Was the Trojan built an "apparatus which can be used to intercept...electronic communication"? Then "yes".
I'd be interesting in knowing whether he actually built the thing and whether there was motive and intent, but quibbling over whether the Trojan was a "device" or an "apparatus" seems a bit pointless here.
Microsoft seems to be getting away with it. =)
Betteridge's Law of Headlines indicates that any headline containing a question should be answered with 'no.' This headline contains a question, and thus Betteridge's Law of Headlines clearly states that the answer is no. Therefore, it is not a crime to create and sell malware. End of discussion.
The Kronos software was not an educational tool for people who would prevent computer penetration or a utility with some other legitimate function. It is not a hunting weapon that just happens to also be capable of shooting people. It looks like it was made to be sold to someone who would commit a crime with it, and for no other purpose.
Bruce Perens.
By the same standard, Obama would get life sentence for his involvement in Operation Fast and Furious.
So now British nationals can be charged for violations of NN U.S.C. x.y.z (technical/procedural "crimes") that occurred OUTSIDE U.S. jurisdiction? So when can we expect US bankers to go to jail for violating other countries banking laws?
And some percentage of oxygen atoms are involved in murders; it doesn't make them the cause.
Obviously the hostile foreign adversary attacking your country is not an ally..
I mean - it's obvious if you aren't siding with the hostile foreign adversary's attacks against your own country.
If fast and furious wasn't a totally fake scandal, that only proved how squeaky clean Obama was... If they had found anything.. anything at all that was real, republicans would have pursued that instead of their obviously fictitious fast and furious nonsense.
All Obama did was cancel the program, and republicans act like he ordered it...
Unsurprisingly those same republicans are now proudly covering for Donald Trump's treasonous collusion with Russia's attack on American democracy.
He's screwed
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Counts two, three and four all allege violations of 18 U.S.C. 2512.
Section 2512 is a rarely used law that criminalizes making, selling or advertising for sale illegal wiretapping devices.
Since when is it illegal in the UK to make wiretapping devices, and to sell them?
The governing law for actions that occurred in the UK by a UK national would not be any part of 18 USC.
That depends on where you live/are, who they have extradition treaties with, and their willingness to enforce the existing laws/treaties against YOU.
If you're talking about a U.K. security researcher, arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada, then I would say yes. If you're talking about a software company based in Ukraine, then I would say no.
By this math, if there was only 1 gun death for 100,000 guns, then each death would have earned the manufacturer $50,000,000.
By the same standard, Obama would get life sentence for his involvement in Operation Fast and Furious.
Yeah, and Vin Diesel along with him.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
If the Feds win big here it may well set a very dangerous precident.
A lot of people in the USA should start to get very, very worried right now.
It doesn't matter who ordered it. He was in charge, he bears ultimate responsibility.
And some percentage of oxygen atoms are involved in murders; it doesn't make them the cause.
Malware is designed with criminal activity in mind.
Only an idiot would think oxygen atoms are comparable to malware.
I'm not a lawyer so I couldn't accurately say if it is, or isn't illegal.
However, I will say I don't think writing Malware per se is necessarily an arrest-able crime. Unless it impacts someone negatively.
If you write Malware for research purposes, and it stays locked in your network. No-one can argue that that should be punishable.
If you write Malware and that Malware impacts another human being (intentionally or not) YES you shoulder some of the responsibility and should be held accountable.
It's not illegal to have a vicious dog, but if your vicious dog escapes and mauls a child; you're partially responsible.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
It does matter who ordered it.... It matters that Donald Trump ordered his team to assist Russia's attack on America.
It matters that Obama's only involvement in Fast and Furious was putting and end to it and making sure it never happens again.
Not to mention, that the same straw purchasers who bought guns for Mexican cartels in states like Arizona with lax gun laws, are still buying them today, because there are still loose gun laws, and immunity for gun sellers.
To the extent that Fast and Furious is a scandal of allowing gun walking, republicans aid and abet straw purchasers with lax gun laws. All this distraction is just a misdirection for the continuing river of blood that they contribute to.
Too late. US Laws already apply to every square inch of the planet. Just look at the long reach that the IRS has. Even if you have never set foot in the USA for say 30 years you still have to pay US Taxes on your income.
Loved that movie. Nic Cage at his best. Don't recall Obama having a cameo in it. Will have to watch it again.
If he wrote the virus and sold it with the knowledge that this was neither an academic exercise or proof of vulnerability and he knew or should have known the tool that he wrote was going to be used to commit crimes... then yes - he should be charged with at least being an accessory to the crimes.
Similarly, if you built a custom device to tap into a lock mechanism on a safe and that the only use was to break into safes... and he built the device for a criminal or criminal organization (and not a locksmith) that person should also be charged.
You are obviously ignorant about how the gun industry and legal sales work.
By federal law it is illegal to sell a gun to someone who is denied the right. Most of the time that means a felon. How does the dealer know they are a felon? Every sale made by an FFL requires a federal background check through the purchaser filling out a 4473 and being subjected to the check through the NICS. That check makes the determination on whether the person is eligible to purchase the gun. If it comes back as a no then it isn't sold. The shop can also refuse to sell for their own reasons as well if they suspect a straw purchase is in play. These surprisingly happen very rarely though. Most criminals get their guns through outright theft, not a stupid attempt to game the system.
FFLs are required to keep long lived and detailed records of all sales and inventory so its not like backroom sales can happen either. There will be a paper trail of the gun leaving the factory, to the distributor and then to the FFL and if it disappears then that will raise flags. The ATF can and does do random audits of FFLs.
Criminals aren't buying their guns from stores and the gun manufacturers aren't profiting off it. The vast majority of guns in criminal hands are stolen. They get stolen from houses, from cop cars, from pawn shops, even sometimes gun stores although most of those have pretty tough security. Oh yeah, they also get given to them by the Obama administration.
...unless you sell it to the Five Eyes because our governments' hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
If Saudi law prohibited the non-wearing of headscarves in LA, and the American woman were then to visit Saudi Arabia, that's exactly what could happen. When you visit another country, you are subjecting yourself to their laws and judicial system.
Similarly, many countries will prosecute over sexual abuse of minors, even if the abuse occurred in an overseas jurisdiction where it was not prohibited.
That comparison is Quick and Spurious.
Really - are we this stupid now Slashdot eds?
I can just imagine you asking the same questions of things like, oh I dunno... GUNS being sold to criminals with known intent to harm.
This is not a case where the software had productive use (say like software used to bypass video encryption to make backups of your DVDs) but only had an intent to harm.
What's next? Are the people responsible for WannaCry REALLLY criminals?
Like China, the government demands that all your data are belong to them, including your thoughts and creations.
If you are a US citizen and live in a country that has lower taxes than the IRS, then this is true. That does not apply here as he is a UK citizen.
They should have just named their software Symantec or McAfee and they would have gotten away with it. See, a little marketing goes a long way.
Just like it should be a crime to sell people guns
No it's not - it's already illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon. IF Kronos was sold with the known intent to be used for research or testing purposes than Hutchins has a defense - but I kinda doubt that.
If I fire a bullet from Mexico or Canada that kills someone in the US, have I committed a crime? Can the US come after me even though the crime was committed from another country? Yes they can, and they should. If I build a rocket in UK, sell it to a guy in Canada, who launches it at someone in the US...is the guy in the UK liable to the US? That is where it gets messy.
Those stolen guns need to be replaced, and they are replaced via new gun sales. Hence, the gun industry benefits from illicit gun usage. Also many are purchased through person-to-person (and less so, gun show) sales which are not covered by NICS checks.
And what if he built it for the NSA to allow them to gain UNAUTHORIZED access into computers? Does that change anything? If not, some companies could be in very big trouble.
When someone forgot the combo or for someone who collects safes and treasure haunts for safes or uses them in a business that unlocks safes for people who lost their combos.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
All he has to claim is he had no intention that the person he sold it to would use it illegally.
Or are you claiming intention has no bearing in this instance and we have a two tiered legal system?
Apparently 18 U.S.C. 2512 amounts to a noun a verb and...
" manufactures, assembles, possesses, or sells any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, and that such device or any component thereof has been or will be sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or "
Sure would love to know what "primarily useful" is supposed to mean.
there is a notable difference. Guns ran in OFF were "military grade" full-auto weapons, not the knock-off semi-auto "lookalike" found in the civilian market.
We crossed this bridge long ago. There are people in prison today for loaning a phone to someone who then made a drug deal with it. If they had knowledge that the other person was likely to be making a drug deal, then they are guilty of felony conspiracy in a cut and dried way. Conviction, if charged, is near certain as the elements of the crime are often trivial to prove.
Conspiracy is a commonly charged offense today. Interestingly, the crime itself never even has to be committed.
Like much in law today, this crime is one that is applied when they want to apply it - usually based on whether or not the police or prosecutors approve of the lifestyle of the target. Technically, anyone writing a fictional crime novel or movie is committing conspiracy, but are they ever charged?
That's not true, most guns that criminals use are sold by FFLs illegally, who then report them stolen.
That has nothing to do with anything.
7-11 benefits when a bank robber buys Cheesypoofs. It means nothing.
How about if you were a US Citizen that made software to circumvent the Great Firewall of China, and sell that to someone in China? Let's assume such software is illegal in China.
Should China be allowed to extradite you to China and punish you? The US would never do it of course. But the point being this has a lot more to do with international relations than it does with law or justice.
Nope. When you're supplying the government there is a reasonable presumption that they already have checks and balances, there is no duty for the supplier to ask about that. Furthermore, the government is allowed to retain tools that have potential illegal uses. Even something at the extreme end, like a missile, which can be used for both legal or illegal targets. It also is known to be able to land in the intended place, or even in an UNAUTHORIZED place. And yet, it is still legal for the government to have missiles.
If you're going to substitute the word "allow" for the word "intend," you should probably just close any browser window whenever you see the word "law" on the page. But even if you had that part right, the government is allowed to possess tools whose intended purpose is "unauthorized."
There are 30 gun homocides per day in the United States. How many of those do you think are at the hands of an automatic weapon.
You are intentionally closing your eyes to one single incident or one rare and expensive type of gun to ignore the river of blood that is staining our country every day.
30 dead today. 30 dead tomorrow.. and all you care about is some fake scandal those entire purpose was to distract for this river of blood.
Many countries prosecute sexual abuse of minors done by their own citizen. Here we are talking about a UK citizen doing something in UK, so your analogy doesn't apply here.
I'm pretty sure that another point of view will be given when a US citizen will be deported from a third party country to Iran or China because they may have broken one of their local laws from their basement in OK (like by coding a perfectly legal VPN system). I'm pretty sure that suddenly will feel that this is completely unreasonable.
I would say so, yes. If it's not, it's something which can easily be added. If you create tools specifically to hurt other people (a gun for instance can be used for self defense, but a banking trojan is explicitly created to steal identities in order to commit fraud and steal money) then you are something which needs to be removed from society.
Exactly 0. Petty thugs will never sink $20k in any full-auto M-16 receiver sparsely available to the civilian market, nor will the apply for the NFA tax stamp and 6 month associated waiting period. They'll use off the self .380 snub-nose that have been in production for nearly 200 years.
For somebody claiming to be worried about legal details like jurisdiction you seem exceptionally ignorant of those details.
And yes, Saudi Arabia is free to make whatever laws they want, including if they wanted to make it illegal for any person to visit who ever walked in the middle of LA without a head scarf. It has nothing to do with anything, though.
In this case, the crime he's accused of committing happened in the United States, and he was also arrested in the United States, so it is a lot more like if Saudi Arabia made it illegal to possess alcohol in Saudi Arabia, and then somebody gets arrested for smuggling it in. And they complain, "Golly, I was outside the country by the time it was delivered, how can your laws touch me?" Easily, is how.
Exactly my point.
Fast and Furious is nothing but a distraction from the gun sales which cause death and destruction every day.
Obama ended the program when he found out about it, and republicans finally found a gun sale they don't support since they could falsely blame it on Obama.
Take the unethical smearing of Obama out of the picture, and republicans go back to supplying drug cartels and gangs with untraceable weapons by keeping gun laws, and liability laws immorally loose.
If I build a rocket in UK, sell it to a guy in Canada, who launches it at someone in the US...is the guy in the UK liable to the US? That is where it gets messy.
If he is criminally liable depends on the details of the case, but he's a legit military target if they need to take it that far.
7-11 benefits when a bank robber buys Cheesypoofs. It means nothing.
Absolutely correct. Not sure why you brought that up.
For example is metasploit malware? If not the framework itself what about an exploit module someone authored?
Some will argue about some test being, "does this thing have a legitimate use case" The problem is one man's testing tool is another mans hacking tool.
We have been down this road over and over again, with things like lock picks. Probably the only solution here is to potentially classify this type of software as "burglars tools" or similar. Where its not illegal to produce/sell/possess but if you have happen to have them in your possession while commuting some other crime its an aggravating offense.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
The media told me that wiretapping only means personally and physically climbing the Trump tower to connect a phone line. So this was obviously not wiretapping. Plus its not like he unmasked the personal information or anything. Since it all was just masked bank information of foreign nationals I'm sure CNN, WSJ, NYT, Fox News, and MSNBC will correct the record for us on this.
The European arrest warrant scheme allows European nations to request deportation of non-citizens from another EU nation for 32 different offenses with no dual-criminality requirement. That is, without even subjecting themselves to the law of the requesting nation by entering its borders.
That goes far beyond what appears to be happening here where jurisdiction could probably be established by the objective territoriality principle. In other words, even without subjecting himself to US law by visiting, the alleged author of the code could potentially be deported because of the impact in the US. Visiting the US just made it a whole lot easier.
I just googled for "charged for writing a virus" and found ... Marcus Huchins!
Better to google for "convicted for writing a virus", which gives examples of people convicted for _running_ a virus, and is ambiguous about the writing.
Best to try google scholar, and select the "case law" option
davecb@spamcop.net
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
His personally chosen Attorney General ordered it, and Obama is on record as having been briefed about its existence.
Obama then cooperated with Holder to refuse to turn over documents to Congress, as they were required to by law. They reassigned the main suspects to overseas sites, so they "weren't available" to testify, they destroyed documents, and when a warrant was issued for Holder, the Federal Marshall was ordered to IGNORE IT.
How can you arrest the head of the DoJ when the President and the head of the DoJ both order their underlings to refuse the lawful warrant?
People died due to Obama's Fast and Furious. Americans died. Hundreds of Mexicans died.
No one died from Trump talking about Hillary's emails. You can't even name a crime Trump committed!
We've still got 3.5 years for Trump to catch up, but at this point, Obama's criminality is much worse.
The lines are very simple. Don't create or sell the device for the purpose of others committing crimes.
For example with your lock picks. In most US States you can carry and sell the lock picks all you want. You can even hold classes teaching people how to lockpick the masterlock model 22F and all is good and legal with that. However it someone came up to you and said "tell me how to lock pick the masterlock model 22F because I want to break into a house protected by one" then you are in trouble.
So what? 250 people will die today due to alcohol. 250 dead tomorrow. That doesn't stop you from picking up a beer.
What is worse, 250 preventable deaths or 30 preventable deaths? Yet here you are whining about one and ignoring the other. You don't care about easily preventable human death.
Ask yourself what do you care about? Why is one death from a scary thing worse than eight deaths from a poison used to entertain?
Because you have to drink yourself to death of your own free will, but guns are used to kill other people...
The same reason base jumping is ok, but strapping a parachute to an elderly person and throwing them off a cliff is frowned upon..
Like... I mean... Is this really that hard to understand?
Why? I can't speak to most, but definitely happens regularly. If you didn't know this, you're the retarded one.
Holder never authorized gun walking. Fast and Furious was only authorized as a traditional gun interdiction and enforcement operation.
You are blaming people for things when their only involvement was ending practices upon their discovery.
And again, for all the concern you have for the comparatively few Americans killed by this type of program, you express no concern whatsoever at the thousands killed every year by guns whose origin was a legal gun sale, perhaps followed by shady private sales.
I don't think you understand laws. You can't make laws for other countries. You're missing the point the crimes committed happened in the US where US laws were broken. Your incorrect analogy would somehow require not wearing the headscarf IN Saudi Arabia.
Arrested for stopping Wannacry. That's what you get for white knighting.
Remember kids, always pay the ransom.
If it's illegal in another country it's illegal in the UK.
Was the first website I saw taken down of many in the future. A malware data base, taken down as it could harm other sites. https://www.google.com/search?...
Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.
There is a larger problem that is not being addressed. Companies that write insecure software and improperly manage their networks should be liable for damages as a result of their negligence.
I can think of a slew of 3 letter agencies all guilty of far worse computer crimes in direct conflict with the US Constitution than what they are trying to charge this security researcher with. Sounds like an unethical, if not, illegal attempt by DOJ to try and coerce this guy into doing something for them. I'm only speculating, but sounds like they have an ulterior motive.
The British government really needs to be involved at this point and at the very least file a lawsuit against DOJ to protect their citizens. Should probably release a travel ban for coming to the US while their at it. LOL
It's a great system. Surely nobody could hope to slip through the cracks.
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/11/176954637/gun-registration-paper-trail-is-long-and-convoluted
the US Gov wants to hire this guy... Lol
Articles 2-4: Don't be confused by the word blizzard. Was the Trojan built an "apparatus which can be used to intercept...electronic communication"? Then "yes".
And that is where a lot of the information security professionals are concerned. There are several programs and methods used in information security research and penetration testing that would fall under that category, one example being the Meterpreter shell in the Metasploit framework. If this case results in a conviction under those charges you can bet many companies and researchers would hesitate to publish their tools for fear of being the next target on an ambitious DA's hit list. Criminalizing tools based on their functionality rather than the users actions with them could have a very chilling effect on information security research.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
Operation Fast and Furious was about smuggling full-auto weapons across the mexican border, so your point is irrelevant. Those guns are being used to kill mexicans in the drugs wars, not gansta downtown Chicago. You're argument is at best irrelevant to the conversation.
We're not talking about killing yourself drinking, we're talking about the lethal consequences of alcohol *to other*. Once again, your argument is irrelevant.
From the summary above it kind of looks like someone has decided to charge Hutchins and has gone through the books looking for something that can be twisted to fit.
Not a good look FBI or whoever is calling the shots here.
If you want a high profile arrest go for the guy behind the Stratfor crack - if you can't find him ask your payroll department (people who don't know the story of how that crack was carried out by an FBI informant and how he was not charged should look it up - interesting story and shows how immunity deals should not be done).
Unfortunately he is not wrong. there are some countries that have a policy called "universal jurisdiction" which does as he descibed.
I'm not so sure it's seen as that simple.
There was that guy that was charged with teaching people how to get good results when subjected to a "lie detector", which is similar to those lockpick classes. Those people who scam the taxpayer by selling snake-oil "lie detector" services are really the ones that need to be imprisoned IMHO.
So, Chinese style, the current case and that guy undermining the "lie detector" scammers seem to have commited the crime of pissing off government employees that should have much better things to do. Whether "Wannacry" was some NSA masterplan (unlikely outside of a Bond movie) or people in the FBI etc wanted to use the chaos as an excuse for departmental empire building (almost certain) Hutchins has pissed off some people who are now using the power of the State against him. Where is oversight when you need it?
The lie detector case was similar he advertised to those people required to take a poly for federal positions. He would work with people that hired him on things they wanted to lie about and then instructed them to lie when asked if they got training.
This made him guilty of working with those people to defraud the government and since they benefited from getting money(salary) they were not eligible for and since he deliberately assisted them in the defrauding and profited from that he was guilty of various crimes.
If he had just stuck with generic classes, training on how to beat generic lie detectors, and not instructed them to lie when asked about the training he would of been good.
So according to you the FBI released the Wannacry and planned to use to that as some master planning in taking over a part of the world. I believe you are the one needing oversight.
WTF? Did I have to put the words I used above "unlikely outside of a Bond movie" in flashing text the full height of the screen or something?
Oh that's right, you saw it but you want some reason to attack to give your life meaning or something so pretended it wasn't there - how utterly pathetic.
WTF is it with people being so deliberately and obviously dishonest just so they can argue?
You are the one throwing out irrelevant nonsense like your Fast and Furious smear to distract from the river of blood caused by the gun sellers who benefit from the loose gun laws that your support.
Arguably, you have only a one sided view on the issue. Gun *saves* much more lives than they do. The very fact that we live in a free world is above all thanks to a single kind of tools: firearms. You can keep throwing love and flower, but that will always be ineffective against lead. Also, gun saves lives everyday, that's why LEO carry them, that's why armored carriers personnel carry them, and that why the fucking elite who want to disarm us is surrounded by hundreds of them.
Also, leave the fucking ivory tower you live in. If it not for guns, people would use knives. Hell, the first murder ever was committed not with a full-auto weapon, but by a stick. Wake the fuck up, violence is an inherent part of mankind.
In USSA everything is illegal and everyone is guilty. So of course it's a crime. Duhhh.
You and your vile elitist kind really hate that plebians have the right to bear arms in America. Thank God for the Second Amendment. Without an armed populace to hold you in check, your kind would already have gone full Nazi.
Why be worried? We've had a full-on police state for over a decade. Not like this makes our current tyranny any more tyrannical than it already was.
Creating malware? Guilty as charged. I do that occasionally on behalf of my clients that want to know whether their security is as tight as they think it is. This is of course very specific software, written with rigid restraints when it comes to propagation and what machines the "malware" may affect at all to ensure that nobody outside gets hit by it and of course without any malicious payload, but the whole criteria for malware are fulfilled. Installation without the user's consent (but of course the machine's owner), hiding from detection, informing a controlling server (the customer's own, of course), transfer of information, circumvention of anti-malware measures and so on.
The same applies to "hacking". If that's outlawed, I'm not only out of a job, I belong behind bars because that's what I do all day long. Of course with the written consent of the owner of the machine(s) being hacked and at their own request, but nonetheless it is exactly the same procedure as if a malicious hacker tried to gain access (maybe with a little less brutality when it comes to the question whether the server survives it...).
This is a necessity of security work. How do you plan to test your defenses if you disallow using the same tools, tricks and means that an actual attacker has at his disposal?
In other words, the US is currently pretty much using a Zeiss scope to ensure it hits its own foot perfectly. Because one thing is certain, no security researcher worth his salt will willingly set foot into a country where simply being what he is and doing what he has to do to be good at his job means putting a foot into the slammer. Nope. Sorry. I'd rather visit a SecCon in Moscow at this point because the chance to get back home are higher.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The same way they have a pile of press releases and request for extra funding every time there is a "cybersecurity" threat no matter where it comes from - as you obviously well know but wish to appear utterly ridiculous by pretending you do not.
WTF is it with this stupid game? Is your life really so empty?
The kiddies may not know how such tedious workplace politics of profiting from chaos works (which is why I mentioned it) but you have no such excuse. Why act like you were born yesterday?
treasonously colluding with a hostile foreign adversary's attack on your country...
I still haven't seen any evidence that 'Putin' did it, and not the NSA (or any other 3-letter deep-state organization for that matter).
One very possible scenario:
Wikileaks (Assange) announces release of emails from HC.
Clinton's team comes up with the brilliant idea to divert the attention by staging a false flag software attack and to blame it on the Ruskis.
Fucking brilliant. Nobody looked at the emails anymore and they brought Trump (oh shit, there's my godwin) in trouble.
So I'd say: evidence required.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
homocide: noun homocide \hä-m0-sd, h-\ : the deliberate and systematic destruction of the group of homosexual people.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Exactly this. it's only because of the 2nd that the government isn't totally fascist (yet).
Boiling down the indictment; it is like prosecuting a manufacturer of lock picks because a customer committed a burglary with his brand of lock pick.
It could be argued that malware is a tool with only a malevolent function. This case may well set an interesting precedent.
Can a gas station and hardware store be prosecuted for selling the products a terrorist uses to make a bomb with?
NRRPT/RCT
Drunk drivers kill other people though his 250 a day is really far off it's more like 28 and as for your gun deaths the number is much higher though the majority of them are suicides and the number of gun homicides is closer to the number of drunk driving fatalities or fatal influenza.