As Prosecutors Submit Evidence, WannaCry Hero's Legal Fund Returns All Donations (buzzfeed.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

As Prosecutors Submit Evidence, WannaCry Hero's Legal Fund Returns All Donations (buzzfeed.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday August 27, 2017 @10:30PM from the fraudulent-funding dept.

An anonymous reader quote BuzzFeed: The vast majority of money raised to pay for the legal defense of beloved British cybersecurity researcher Marcus Hutchins was donated with stolen or fake credit card numbers, and all donations, including legitimate ones, will be returned, the manager of the defense fund says. Lawyer Tor Ekeland, who managed the fund, said at least $150,000 of the money collected came from fraudulent sources, and that the prevalence of fraudulent donations effectively voided the entire fundraiser. He said he'd been able to identify only about $4,900 in legitimate donations, but that he couldn't be certain even of those. "I don't want to take the risk, so I just refunded everything," he said.
Two days later, Hutchins posted the following on Twitter. "When sellouts are talking shit about the 'infosec community' remember that someone I'd never met flew to Vegas to pay $30K cash for my bail."

Hutchins is facing up to 40 years in prison, and at first was only allowed to leave his residence for four hours each week. Thursday a judge lifted some restrictions so that Hutchins is now allowed to travel to Milwaukee, where his employer is located. According to Bloomberg, government prosecutors complain Hutchins now "has too much freedom while awaiting trial and may skip the country."

Clickthrough for a list of the evidence government prosecutors submitted to the court this week.
According to BankInfoSecurity, this is the evidence submitted by government prosecutors.

Statements made by Hutchins after he was arrested.
A CD containing two audio recordings from a county jail in Nevada where he was apparently detained by the FBI.
150 pages of Jabber chats between the defendant and an individual.
Business records from Apple, Google and Yahoo.
Statements (350 pages) by the defendant from another internet forum, which were seized by the government in another district.
Three to four samples of malware.
A search warrant executed on a third party, which may contain some privileged information.

Hutchins' attorneys have requested 45-60 days to review evidence, and on October 13 both attorneys will then give the judge a proposed schedule for the actual trial.

172 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-27 22:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

This wouldn't happen with Bitcoin, no rollbacks, just cold hard money.
1. Re:Bitcoin by DontBeAMoran · 2017-08-27 23:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And all you have to do is pay 5% of your Bitcoins and wait four days for the transaction to confirm!
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
2. Re:Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-27 23:45 · Score: 0
  
  It's not so bad now. There were a lot of disturbances due to Bitcoin Cash being introduced in the last month. Fortunately it seems to be stabilizing now.
3. Re: Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-27 23:59 · Score: 0
  
  Just kidding it's still horrible lol.
4. Re: Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 00:26 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Umm... Why was my post censored to -1? You moderators are incredibly stupid and have sticks up your asses.
5. Re: Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 00:45 · Score: 0
  
  Just kidding I love the mods lol.
6. Re: Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 00:53 · Score: 0
  
  Ha! Fake laugh. Hiding real pain.
7. Re:Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  Gotta steal the bitcoins first, although that doesn't seem to be a problem either.
8. Re: Bitcoin by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-08-28 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Umm... Why was my post censored to -1? You moderators are incredibly stupid and have sticks up your asses.
  So no one could see your post? Ah you moderns, thinking that no one is allowed to disagree with you, and if they do, it is censorship. We'll get ya a new binky.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
9. Re: Bitcoin by DontBeAMoran · 2017-08-28 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  They can disagree with him all they want, but how is "so no one can see your post" not (at least partial) censorship?
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
10. Re: Bitcoin by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-08-28 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  They can disagree with him all they want, but how is "so no one can see your post" not (at least partial) censorship?
  So which posts to you not see? Numerical moderation is not even remotely censorship except to those who cannot handle disagreement. I saw the post, which should be obvious because I replied.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
11. Re: Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 02:32 · Score: 0
  
  I'm offended that someones offended.
12. Re:Bitcoin by tomhath · 2017-08-28 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  You're saying that once a bitcoin is obtained illegally there's no way for the rightful owner to ever recover it? (because that's why all the donations were returned - stolen credit cards).
  Thanks, but I'll pass on that system.
13. Re: Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Moderation is for the purpose of rating the quality of a post rather than whether you agree or disagree with it. The purpose of moderation is to evaluate whether a comment contributed something of value to the discussion, not whether people agree or disagree with the post. It's ironic that you suggest that the AC can't handle disagreement while your post implies that moderation should be used to indicate agreement or disagreement with a post. If you mod down posts you disagree with, regardless of whether they're cogent and well-written, that suggests that you can't handle disagreement.
  The OP is saying that it's harder to get fraudulent donations refunded with bitcoin, and that's true. While there are certainly better contributions to the discussion, the post doesn't seem like a -1 quality comment to me.
14. Re:Bitcoin by Immerman · 2017-08-28 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  Sure there is - the same way as if someone stole cash from you - track them down and force them to give it back. It's potentially even easier with bitcoin because every transactions leaves a permanent public record so you know *exactly* where your money went. Of course if someone steals your bitcoin wallet they'll probably immediately empty it and attempt to launder the money - money laundering (aka "bitcoin mixers" and, I think, many of the "exchanges") being one of the first and most persistent major services available for bitcoin.
  Also,as an aside, I'm fairly certain that there is no such thing as "a bitcoin" - there's only bitcoin "wallets", essentially just an account number that shows up in the public ledger every time a transaction adds or removes money. Trace every transaction involving your account from the very first one and you can verify what the current balance is.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
15. Re: Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  Duh. It's only censorship of I agree with it, you dumb libtard.
16. Re:Bitcoin by freeze128 · 2017-08-28 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Bitcoin is anything but "cold, hard money".
17. Re: Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  They can disagree with him all they want, but how is "so no one can see your post" not (at least partial) censorship?
  So which posts to you not see? Numerical moderation is not even remotely censorship except to those who cannot handle disagreement. I saw the post, which should be obvious because I replied.
  Useful disagreement: articulate the reason(s) why something is wrong. This serves two purposes. It shows that your disagreement is legitimate and not the typical "shoot the messenger" response of child-men who overreact emotionally to truth they find uncomfortable or happen to be in denial about. It also provides others a chance to learn something new or at least understand an alternate viewpoint.
  Useless disagreement: you can't be bothered to do any of that, yet you feel strongly enough to use a limited resource (mod points). You see what you think are wrong views out there, yet value your own so little that you won't try to represent it. So you mod it "-1 Troll, Flamebait, Overrated" even though it fits none of the definitions of those mods. You fail to note that there is no "-1 Disagree" mod or you think that was some accidental oversight.
  One of these approaches is definitely more useful (and indicative of an adult mind) than the other. They are not on equal footing, as you seem to be implying. They're not equal in intent, motivation, or observable effect. The former is clearly superior. It also tends to foster disagreement, so it would be the preferred choice among those who can handle disagreement.
18. Re: Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 03:47 · Score: 0
  
  Oh shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit son
19. Re:Bitcoin by slashrio · 2017-08-28 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  I think there are bitcoins, and they reside at their respective addresses of which the owners hold the private keys.
  
  --
  "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
20. Re: Bitcoin by BronsCon · 2017-08-28 04:40 · Score: 2
  
  Indeed. That's why the best of us here tend to post in disagreement and moderate in agreement. I'd give you a point but you're not logged in.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
21. Re: Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  That's unacceptable to me.
22. Re:Bitcoin by Immerman · 2017-08-28 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  And where, exactly, do these addresses exist that they can contain anything? Bitcoin addresses are just transaction tokens. You have a wallet (account number) that is associated with a certain balance based on past transaction ledger entries. The coins exist only as a total on a ledger sheet, they have no individual identity. Unlike some other electronic currencies where individual "coins" have their own unique signature that gets passed around. More like modern banking/credit card transactions than buying stuff with cash - everything is just numbers on a spreadsheet.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
23. Re: Bitcoin by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-08-28 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  That's unacceptable to me.
  I'm unacceptably offended.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
24. Re: Bitcoin by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-08-28 06:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Useful disagreement: articulate the reason(s) why something is wrong. This serves two purposes. It shows that your disagreement is legitimate and not the typical "shoot the messenger" response of child-men who overreact emotionally to truth they find uncomfortable or happen to be in denial about.
  One of the best things about slashdot is it's moderation system. It allows those who have a silly opinion to still post without being blocked, and it serves to lower the value of the "Your mom really loved my cock" and all of the other bullshit posted by people with severe psychosexual issues. They are still here, but if I don't feel like scrolling through a hundred posts like that, I just set the slider to not show anything lower than two. If silly season isn't bad, I read wide open.
  I don't know if you were around when the trolls and flamers destroyed Usenet. Talk about kooks. There wre the usual homsexual projections by people that were gay, but uncomfortable with it, so went around calling everyone els cocksuckers and describing what they did with others in graphic detail. The usenet response was "filter them out, but some of the kooks just kept opening new email accounts - I don't know what the guy was doing with his life, but he opened and posted hundreds of messages from new accounts every day.
  We traced him down and complained to his ISP, but with no luck. By the way, it is really really really difficult to be anonymous on the interent when people really really want to find you.
  And when the amount of bullshit was 10 times the amount of actual conversation, everyone gave up and went to groups with a moderator.
  The ironic thing is that after all of the trolling and flaming killed a group, it wasn't as much fun for the trolls and flamers. So they abandoned the group they just killed, and moved on to fresh people to annoy.
  So yeah, you can post as an AC here, and if people want to see APK or Moo Cow guy - whatever happend to him - he made me laugh - we can do that.
  
  It also provides others a chance to learn something new or at least understand an alternate viewpoint.
  So tell me, what is the useful point of "You moderators are incredibly stupid and have sticks up your asses." ?
  What exactly will I learn? I did reply that I saw his post. But even that reply is not accepted by those of you AC's that apparently think that a person who diasgrees with them is censorship. Sorry, but you don't even want what you claim you want.
  
  Useless disagreement: you can't be bothered to do any of that, yet you feel strongly enough to use a limited resource (mod points). You see what you think are wrong views out there, yet value your own so little that you won't try to represent it.
  So anyhow, tell me the use of telling me that my mom enjoyed it when AC fucked her? She's dead, 6 feet under, fnad fuck no I'm not going to get into a serious discussion to learn the AC's viewpoint. He is sick person, and deserves that -1. DEal with it, if you want conversation post something to have a conversation about.
  
  So you mod it "-1 Troll, Flamebait, Overrated" even though it fits none of the definitions of those mods. You fail to note that there is no "-1 Disagree" mod or you think that was some accidental oversight.
  One of these approaches is definitely more useful (and indicative of an adult mind) than the other. They are not on equal footing, as you seem to be implying. They're not equal in intent, motivation, or observable effect. The former is clearly superior. It also tends to foster disagreement, so it would be the preferred choice among those who can handle disagreement.
  All you have to do to get a conversation going is post something that is worth talking about. But when you expect a cogent response to accusactions that the moderators have sticks up their asses, all I can tell you in manner of serious thought is none that I know do.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
25. Re: Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 07:42 · Score: 0
  
  Wow. You folks are really thoughtful. The times I had mod points, my mod up / down was a knee jerk reaction. to a post. I did this as my observation was that's how 'it was done ' on ./.
  No sarcasm intended, I was casual, and put in zero thought.
26. Re: Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  A thing's purpose and how it is actually (ab)used are often very, very different.
27. Re: Bitcoin by KGIII · 2017-08-28 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  You silly cow. Moo says the cow. Moo! You're all cows!
  Err... I can afford the karma.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
28. Re: Bitcoin by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-08-28 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  You silly cow. Moo says the cow. Moo! You're all cows!
  Err... I can afford the karma.
  Ahhhhh, Thank you! 8^)
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
29. Re:Bitcoin by slashrio · 2017-08-28 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for the better explanation.
  
  --
  "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
30. Re: Bitcoin by KGIII · 2017-08-28 20:24 · Score: 1
  
  Just the other day, I was lamenting the lack of cow guy.
  Confession: I have cowsay installed and use it more often than I should.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
31. Re: Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-29 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  Money is generally neither cold nor hard, merely scarce.
  The exception of course is metal coin, which banks won't even accept for currency exchange because it's too hard.
He too slow by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-27 22:51 · Score: 0

for Moscow trip so he face the music in place of tranitor guy Lance Snowden. Do not make the crime if you want the time. Dummass to for thinking him smarter than G-man who have all phones listening to recorders.
1. Re:He too slow by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-27 22:58 · Score: 0
  
  Such sweet irony to title your post 'He too slow' with the content of your comment. Are you sure you even know what you were saying?
2. Re:He too slow by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-27 23:16 · Score: 0
  
  for Moscow trip so he face the music in place of tranitor guy Lance Snowden. Do not make the crime if you want the time. Dummass to for thinking him smarter than G-man who have all phones listening to recorders.
  Damn if I wasn't looking for "Main screen turn on" in that word salad.
  Punctuation, spelling, grammar, and the ability to post a cogent statment are your friends....
3. Re:He too slow by arglebargle_xiv · 2017-08-28 00:06 · Score: 1
  
  Punctuation, spelling, grammar, and the ability to post a cogent statment are your friends....
  A Trump speech, in other words.
4. Re:He too slow by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  Why bold those words?
  Or is grunting your only communication?
5. Re: He too slow by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  OK hypercritical boy....
  What the hell is a "statment"?
  What have you contributed to the discussion?
  I'm waiting for "I don't know" and "nothing".
6. Re:He too slow by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-08-28 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  for Moscow trip so he face the music in place of tranitor guy Lance Snowden. Do not make the crime if you want the time. Dummass to for thinking him smarter than G-man who have all phones listening to recorders.
  Much smart. Very wow. You r doing me a concern, fren..
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
7. Re:He too slow by erikkemperman · 2017-08-28 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Why bold those words?
  Muphry's Law
  
  --
  Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
8. Re:He too slow by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  Spud doesn't have any bearing on this.
  Unless you used mind control to type the actual substance and did not know your keyboard was not mind activated?
9. Re:He too slow by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  hilarious and original
10. Re:He too slow by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  Who is Lance Snowden? What is a tranitor? trans janitor? Have you you got several different people confused as the same person?
Ouch by wonkey_monkey · 2017-08-27 22:53 · Score: 5, Funny

Thursday a judge lifted some restrictions so that Hutchins is now allowed to travel to Milwaukee
Hey, what happened to "no cruel or unusual punishment"?

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1. Re: Ouch by dougdonovan · 2017-08-27 23:07 · Score: 1
  
  damned if i do, damned if i dont. shit happens. moving along now.
2. Re:Ouch by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-27 23:09 · Score: 0
  
  Thursday a judge lifted some restrictions so that Hutchins is now allowed to travel to Milwaukee
  Hey, what happened to "no cruel or unusual punishment"?
  All your Constitution belong to us!
  Where "us" is the government.
3. Re: Ouch by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-27 23:23 · Score: 0
  
  Hey Rick, quit kidding a-, a-, around.
  I just wanna go home.
  - Morty
4. Re:Ouch by DNS-and-BIND · 2017-08-27 23:48 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a punishment as he hasn't been convicted yet. You think government prosecutors don't know how to make an end run around the Constitution? You think they play fair? This is the Department of Justice we're talking about.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
5. Re:Ouch by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  I once sat in on a trial run by DOJ where their prosecutor lied so blatantly that his own expert witness sued him. The federal judge even agreed that the prosecutor was lying but that it was ok.
6. Re:Ouch by slashrio · 2017-08-28 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Those 4000 that didn't turn up for work in WTC on 9/11 did not stay away because they were warned not to go. They didn't turn up because their job of placing the explosives and wiring was done.
  
  --
  "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
7. Re:Ouch by ebvwfbw · 2017-08-29 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  Should go to a TV news station that exposes abuse like that. Hey, stop laughing, there are some good reporters out there that still report real news.
8. Re:Ouch by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-29 23:12 · Score: 0
  
  Why is he being tried in the US in the first place?
  A russian banking trojan and a UK resident.. There is no logic to this.
Depends on where he stays by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-27 23:20 · Score: 0

If he finds a good hotel or BnB. I hear the Wisconce Inn is great.
Misleading Title by CanadianMacFan · 2017-08-27 23:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

I read the title and I thought that they were giving the legal fund donations back because they had given up, not because almost all of them were fraudulent.
Shut up by Paradise+Pete · 2017-08-27 23:33 · Score: 5, Informative

I notice that the very first bullet point of evidence submitted by prosecutors is "Statements made by Hutchins after he was arrested." As Popehat has said, when the police interview or arrest you, shut up. Don't explain, don't offer reasons or excuses, just shut the hell up and get a lawyer.
1. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 00:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  a longer video about why you shouldn't talk to the police, at all.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
2. Re:Shut up by drinkypoo · 2017-08-28 00:12 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  a longer video about why you shouldn't talk to the police, at all.
  I recently heard the mother of all shouting arguments and then even some gunfire from a home across the valley from me, and guess who I called? Yep, nobody. Hopefully only property damage was involved. But I'm not calling in an attack on the neighbor's land, and then having the cops come over here and shoot me.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
3. Re:Shut up by Cederic · 2017-08-28 00:19 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Sure. They're going to do that.
  Meanwhile, your neighbour may have just bled to death. Depending which state you're in, you might well have broken the law.
  What's wrong with calling the police, heading over the valley, assessing the situation and providing aid? Oh no, might get hurt? Fucking cowardly piece of shit.
4. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 00:29 · Score: 0
  
  Mate, read the fucking news. Innocent people are being murdered by the cops every day in the USA. Welcome to the beginning of the end of this society as we know it.
5. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 00:32 · Score: 0
  
  If you really want to drive the point across, here's the video you should point people to.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
6. Re:Shut up by DRJlaw · 2017-08-28 00:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Sure. They're going to do that.
  Well, they did that, so you're simply denying reality.
  
  Meanwhile, your neighbour may have just bled to death.
  Let's get this straight -- well-armed and resourced police have no duty to do anything, but he does.
  
  Depending which state you're in, you might well have broken the law.
  Nope. One pretty much has to have actually seen a felony, or assisted someone after the fact knowing that they'd committed a crime.
  
  What's wrong with calling the police, heading over the valley, assessing the situation and providing aid?
  Apparently the risk of death even though you may be heavily armed and virtually immune from prosecution. Oh, wait, you meant a civilian. Lack of training, no qualified immunity, and the aforementioned being shot by first responders, methinks
  
  Oh no, might get hurt? Fucking cowardly piece of shit.
  Internet tough guy. Try not to select such an obvious meme.
7. Re:Shut up by drinkypoo · 2017-08-28 00:48 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Meanwhile, your neighbour may have just bled to death. Depending which state you're in, you might well have broken the law.
  Bullshit. Unless I have specific knowledge that a crime was committed, I have no such responsibility. And since it was at a time of day at which it was perfectly legal to discharge a firearm, I have no such knowledge. I can't see what's happening over there, even with a spotting scope. There are trees in the way, and it is far. I couldn't even hear what they were shouting about. Maybe they were shouting at a mountain lion that was trying to eat their chickens. They've got a rooster, so I presume they've got some.
  If the cops were friendly and the law were sane, I would have called the cops, because I care. But since they often aren't, I didn't, for the same reason.
  I've had mixed experiences with police in this town. As a child I was unfairly targeted, and got a ride in the front of a shitty little police car with my hands cuffed too tight and my face against the dash because this racist shitbag statutory rapist swat team assfuck didn't like the cut of my jib. I had not, in fact, committed any crime, he was just sending my father a message through me. On the other hand, more recently someone made a 911 call about supposed domestic violence occurring at my address. They were fairly polite, but they did pull my gate post out of the ground so they didn't have to cut my lock. That's still askew today. My ex-girlfriend's minibike (marked for sale, in yard) was stolen by perhaps the friend of a cop their family was having problems with; after it was stolen, but before they reported it stolen, he called them and told them he did not steal it. And keep in mind that everyone involved in these stories is white. Many, of course, are white trash. Whether I am the same is probably a matter of perspective; in my defense, I'm not all white. If I am trash, I'm at least off-white trash.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
8. Re:Shut up by Cederic · 2017-08-28 00:52 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  I don't have to be an Internet Tough Guy to call out the insane fucking fear that people in the US force themselves to live under.
  All these responses going on about the violent police. The police are fucking nothing in the US compared to the general populace, and what you're all doing about it is.. promoting more violence.
  Punch a Nazi or shoot the fucking police at a BLM event. Sure, that's going to settle things down.
  Where the fuck do you all fucking live? My friends in Texas own firearms and will go out to help a neighbour. They're not scared of the police, they just live more than 8 minutes away from emergency assistance, or have a sense of community, or trust that if they're not breaking the law then they're generally going to be just fine.
  Maybe it's not a location thing, maybe it's a generational thing. Perhaps the answer is to bring back national service and ship everybody to fucking Africa for a couple of years to learn what a hard life really looks like.
  Internet fucking tough guy meme? No, human being that isn't a scared selfish cunt meme.
9. Re:Shut up by ledow · 2017-08-28 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  "guys with guns" in England?
  Few. Far between. Certainly not the norm. Considered specialist units. Literally lived in England my entire life and only ever seen them at airports. Also almost always have cams on them nowadays.
  Shootings by police are INCREDIBLY rare and are often discovered to be against people who have things like Uzis (literally no legal method of owning such a thing in my country) hidden in their car that they reached for.
10. Re:Shut up by ledow · 2017-08-28 00:58 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  This is what happens when gunfire is normal.
  In my country, there's a good chance you'd end up on the news for discharging a firearm like that. Certainly everybody in earshot would be calling the police, and most of them would then be looking for the shooter, even if just out of their windows.
  This is much more to do with becoming acclimatised to being in a country where any idiot can own a gun and fire it, than anything to do with the police.
11. Re:Shut up by martyros · 2017-08-28 01:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Don't explain, don't offer reasons or excuses, just shut the hell up and get a lawyer.
  That might be the best advice in the US, where they're not allowed to hold your silence against you. But in the UK, where Marcus is from, that's not necessarily the best advice; and they tell you when they're arresting you (paraphrasing), "You don't have to say anything now, but it if you don't, it may harm your case later if your defense depends on answers to the questions we're asking."
  
  --
  TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
12. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 01:14 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, and Hans Reiser was only convicted because he was awkward and Ross Ulbritch was really just being framed by Mark Karpeles.
13. Re:Shut up by DontBeAMoran · 2017-08-28 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  Man, read the fucking news. Innocent people are being murdered by the cops every day in the USA. Welcome to the beginning of the end of the USA as we know it.
  FTFY
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
14. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 01:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Mate, read the fucking news. Innocent people are being murdered by the cops every day in the USA.
  Sure... in a country of 350 million plus, we're dropping like flies. Get a grip you hyperbolic twatwaffle.
15. Re:Shut up by slashrio · 2017-08-28 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  You clearly didn't follow his link and read the article, did you?
  
  --
  "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
16. Re:Shut up by slashrio · 2017-08-28 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Officer 1 to officer 2: "Where did that phone call come from?" Officer 2: "13, Crime Street." Driver: "What did you say was the address?" Officer 1: "13, Crime Street. And bring the big guns!" Driver: "Off we go!"
  
  --
  "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
17. Re:Shut up by slashrio · 2017-08-28 01:52 · Score: 0
  
  You don't seem to understand that what keeps the US from becoming a fascist police state tomorrow is gun ownership, massive gun ownership.
  
  --
  "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
18. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 01:59 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, I remember that Brazilian "terrorist" shot down in the tube for the crime of looking like someone else.
19. Re:Shut up by Dan+East · 2017-08-28 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  It seems to me that holding your silence is the best option in the UK too. Just because the police tell you some tricky statement to try and get you to make a mistake doesn't mean you shouldn't hold your silence. How can the defense "depend" on those answers, when they don't know what the answers will be? In all cases, making a statement under maximum duress and stress is not a good idea. The statement "You don't have to say anything now, but it if you don't, it may harm the ability of the prosecution to win a conviction and force you to rot in jail." is just as accurate.
  
  --
  Better known as 318230.
20. Re:Shut up by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-08-28 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  Sure. They're going to do that.
  I am not certain where you are from, but yes, that happens. Google is your friend in this matter, but here's one person who called the police and ended up dead http://nypost.com/2017/07/25/w...
  Police training today is a bit messed up, with requirements to unload on a person if they are frightened. To the point where many people are more afraid of the police than thugs. Just how it is.
  
  Meanwhile, your neighbour may have just bled to death.
  Yeah, isn't that messed up?
  
  Depending which state you're in, you might well have broken the law.
  Now there's a good one to try to prosecute. Maybe you were asleep.
  
  What's wrong with calling the police, heading over the valley, assessing the situation and providing aid? Oh no, might get hurt? Fucking cowardly piece of shit.
  You might get killed, as happened to Justine Damon, the woman from Australia who was shot and killed in Minnesota after calling in a disturbance. Supposedly she "slapped" the police car, frightening one of the officers inside, who then shot and killed her. But whatever she did, he found it necessary to terminate her life.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
21. Re:Shut up by AmiMoJo · 2017-08-28 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  The situation in the UK is pretty fucked up. If you don't trust the police (and why would you, they have a track record of lying) you have to convince a jury that's why you didn't want to talk to them. And most juries are quite conservative and willing to trust the police, which is why they get away with lying so often.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
22. Re: Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  Because the cops are run by the government wish is run by the corps. The corps have vast interest in running the prison corp of America, and need to keep it full. The cops jobs is to arrest perpetrators and lots of them. Who are they going to arrest if you a cop. Are you going to do a long drawn out investigation, or are you going to arrest the first person you come to? Your going to arrest the first person you came to, and that is the person reporting the crime. 90% of people reporting the crime actually committed th3 crime. That is science. You can't argue with science and you can't argue with the law
23. Re:Shut up by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-08-28 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  I don't have to be an Internet Tough Guy to call out the insane fucking fear that people in the US force themselves to live under.
  The best way to not have you called out as an Internet tough guy is to not act like an Internet tough guy.
  Funny how that stuff works, especially when you double down on the tough guy posts.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
24. Re: Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 02:08 · Score: 0
  
  crime of looking nothing like someone else, but he and the guy they were looking for were both foreign, so close enough
  FTFY
25. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  One instance of something bad happening means that it happens all the time? You, sir, are a moron.
26. Re:Shut up by vipw · 2017-08-28 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Oh. And what's the reason all the other OECD countries aren't becoming fascist police states?
27. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 02:16 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Where the fuck do you all fucking live? My friends in Texas own firearms and will go out to help a neighbour. They're not scared of the police, they just live more than 8 minutes away from emergency assistance, or have a sense of community, or trust that if they're not breaking the law then they're generally going to be just fine.
  Your friends sound white.
28. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  Police can lie to you which is why you shut up. "We have a witness that has fingered you" "we have video showing" "admit it now or you're going away for 25 years" They will say anything but when you open your mouth what you said can and WILL be used against you.
  cop: (50th time asking) you did it, didn't you. admit it
  you: yeah, I totally ran over that guy in a car a I don't own, in a country I wasn't in, while giving a presentation to 500 people at a conference
  cop: got ya!
  judge: yep, guilty
  you: fml
29. Re:Shut up by drinkypoo · 2017-08-28 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Sure... in a country of 350 million plus, we're dropping like flies. Get a grip you hyperbolic twatwaffle.
  Hyperbole is the problem, but it's the war-on-cops bullshit when it's about the safest time ever to be a cop in the USA, and meanwhile they're killing us in record numbers.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
30. Re:Shut up by nasch · 2017-08-28 02:41 · Score: 2
  
  Some more information about the risk of remaining silent in the UK:
  
  Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused:
  fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention;
  fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question;
  fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or
  fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place.
  How someone under the stress of being questioned by police is supposed to make a good decision based on these factors is beyond me, which is why the absolute right to silence without consequence is so important IMO.
31. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you've missed the stories of police brutality?
  https://reason.com/blog/2017/08/15/newly-released-video-shows-texas-cops-11
  https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/police-brutality-misconduct-and-shootings
  http://thefreethoughtproject.com/category/cop-watch/police-brutality-cop-watch/
  When the cops are unpredictable, almost capricious in some cases, it's hard to believe that you can act normal, even if 'you aren't doing anything wrong'. Perhaps you're a white guy. That's definitely in your favor. You can act like it's not, but spend a few minutes searching for institutional racism and you'll find plenty of documentation that it is. If you want to cry about black people acting belligerent against white people and calling that racist, there is the small issue of person to person confrontation versus state agency to person confrontation, so it's not the same.
32. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 02:48 · Score: 0
  
  a longer video about why you shouldn't talk to the police, at all.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
  man it really IS the season for bringing that video back.
33. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  Well in the US the cops are allowed to lie to the suspects whereas in the UK they are not.
34. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  " My friends in Texas own firearms and will go out to help a neighbour."
  Sure seems that you dont live here.. so stfu.
  Hugs and kisses,
  Juan Epstein
35. Re:Shut up by Nidi62 · 2017-08-28 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  There's also a bit of, for the lack of a better term, a (non?) survivor bias in that while incidents such as the Australian woman or Tamir Rice get a lot of publicity, there are thousands of police encounters every day that end calmly and peacefully.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
36. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 03:31 · Score: 0
  
  >Also almost always have cams on them nowadays.
  Doesn't everything over there... Be proud you aren't to be trusted with guns. You also have nannycams on you 24x7. Good for you.
37. Re: Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  So you are saying that the US is not currently a facist state? That's news to a third if the country. Possibly a different third than a year ago. But I'm pretty sure some famous nut over there was screaming about an imperial presidency when Obama was your top guy. I wonder what happened to that clown...
38. Re:Shut up by fafalone · 2017-08-28 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Because if you call the police for help they might shoot you. Haven't you been watching the news? Not even white woman are exempt from summary execution upon summoning the police for aid these days.
39. Re: Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  Parent post is a cop, lying.
40. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 03:45 · Score: 0
  
  and guess who I called? Yep, nobody.
  
  Good citizen. Rather than advocating for fixing the problem you slot right in with the degeneration of your own society.
  Fucking coward.
41. Re:Shut up by thegarbz · 2017-08-28 03:47 · Score: 2
  
  Just because the police tell you some tricky statement to try and get you to make a mistake
  UK not US. The police don't have quotas on arresting people there and are generally far more respected as a functioning part of society compare to the brain-dead hitsquad that is the USA.
42. Re:Shut up by HornWumpus · 2017-08-28 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  Blacks in America are shot below their expected rate based on their propensity for violent crime.
  The commit 40% of serious violent crimes (e.g. Murder, Ag Assault etc), but are only about 30% of those shot by police.
  The black community does have a bitch, they don't get their fair share of police protection.
  This is where you claim that black violent crime is better counted. Which is bullshit. They are much less likely to call the cops, their violent crime is undercounted.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
43. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 03:56 · Score: 0
  
  I guess it depends where you live. I'll still trust the cops to call on them to look into something if I hear shooting in my neighborhood. Even if I'm a minority (albeit non-black and non-Muslim).
44. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  The hysteria is palpable.
45. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  It's even trickier. In the US you need to fully commit to one strategy or the other. If you decide not to speak, you must _never_ speak. Once you start to answer questions, you will be implicitly (or explicitly) silent on certain issues/questions. That _can_ be used against you. I believe that the minimum required is to identify yourself and that is about it. After that, say nothing.
46. Re:Shut up by thegarbz · 2017-08-28 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they did that, so you're simply denying reality.
  Want to know why we're discussing this? Because it's a news article. It was news worthy. There are 657,000 calls to police every single day. The GP was dead on right with dismissing the linked article. It isn't any resemblance of reality, and just because it happened doesn't mean you can expect it to happen again.
  
  Let's get this straight -- well-armed and resourced police have no duty [tribunist.com] to do anything, but he does.
  I love people citing supreme court rulings as evidence that people should be shit human beings. You don't need a supreme court to tell you that police have no duty to protect you, to expect them to do just that. As far as I can tell they don't have a duty to protect people in ANY country, yet they do just that, hundreds of thousands of times over on a daily basis.
  But you're right, the OP didn't have a legal duty to do anything. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be called out for being a worthless human being for his cowardice.
  
  Oh, wait, you meant a civilian. Lack of training, no qualified immunity, and the aforementioned being shot by first responders, methinks
  What about being a civilian means that he has no training? By the way, every state of the USA has some kind of Good Samaritan law. And being shot? Well let's just conclude that if there's one case like it every day, then the 1 in 657,000 odds are quite acceptable. Now getting hit by a car while crossing the street. oooh, now that one has me scared.
  
  Internet tough guy. Try not to select such an obvious meme.
  There's nothing internet tough guy about calling out a worthless coward for what they are, when they perpetuate the continual decline civil society because they are afraid of a statistically improbable event, and are too shitty of a human being to investigate a fellow person who may be in need of aid.
47. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 04:43 · Score: 0
  
  they're allowed to hold your silence against you. its called aiding and abetting, by omission.
  literally, saying nothing, is now "evidence" of a crime.
  and thanks to SCOTUS, they can now comment on your immediate retention of a lawyer as "proof" you are guilty.
  the only way to win, is to bury the fuck that tries to pull that shit. do your time, and hold your head up high, that one less cunt, walks the earth.
48. Re:Shut up by slashrio · 2017-08-28 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  First they have to get rid of the guns in the US. Obama did a good job trying it, Clinton would have continued his job.
  When the guns in the US are gone, world fascism (and with that I literally mean the boots will be in your neck) will kick in.
  First in the US, then the rest (OECD).
  It has to be world wide, so first the US guns have to go, then ik can start.
  
  --
  "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
49. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  " meanwhile they're killing us in record numbers."
  Who is exactly is "us"? How many people did the police shoot at the love fest that took place at Berkleystan over the weekend? There were a lot of people in that crowd who needed to be shot. Maybe the NRA can be talked into holding a rally celebrating the 2nd Amendment. When the ass hats show up to stop them from exercising their 1st Amendment rights things should get exciting. For some reason people think counter-protests give them the right to prevent others from exercising the same rights the counter protesters cling to like a shield. For some reason they will only allow free speech for those who agree with them. Anyone attempting to offer a different opinion should be stopped by any means necessary. The fun is just beginning and when the body count starts rising things will only get worse. And that is OK because there are some people who never take responsibility for their actions and culpability in the idiocy taking place today. Everyone has the right to Free speech but they are not guaranteed protection from the consequences of their speech. The 1st Amendment protects the citizen rights from actions by the government or anyone acting for the government. It doesn't guarantee protection for citizen to citizen interactions. Private companies are not required to protect or provide a platform for anyone's freedom of speech. The media is not required to provide a platform that guarantees someone's free speech. A private company or individual can censor anything they like without breaking any law. We now require heavily armed law enforcement officers to stand in between two groups of citizens exercising their rights to free speech in an effort to prevent mob violence. I think it's time the law enforcement officers remove themselves from the scene and let nature take it's course. After all we must make sure the trigger happy law enforcement officers killing us do not get the chance to do so. The mobs should be free to settle their arguments any way they want while the vast majority of citizens who have lives to lead just keep living them.
50. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  Days I wish I had mod points to mod you up.
  Nobody wants to go out on a limb for anyone else anymore.
  I've lived all over and while the effect is far worse in most urban / suburban areas, I even see it now in rural areas, particularly among the younger generations. And I don't subscribe to millennial-bashing.
  I just shake my head at the media proclaiming "heroes" of people responding in a way that any decent human being should respond. Real heroes are those who go above and beyond, putting themselves in serious peril for the sake of others.
  Ah well. Maybe we'll get a nice civilization-ending comet soon.
51. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  Put your tongue in park!
52. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, so "To Protect and Serve" was always bullshit then. Too bad. I guess that was always the American myth, that the Law is to protect the little people. The Sheriff In Town always used to wear a white hat. Now it's combat gear. One uses combat gear against The Enemy. We all now know who the enemy of the police are. The people.
53. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  compare to the brain-dead hitsquad that is the USA.
  hitSQUADS! There 10s of thousands (probably HUNDREDS) of police departments, sheriffs departments, public safety departments, etc. in the US. They do NOT function as a single, cohesive unit.
54. Re:Shut up by ledow · 2017-08-28 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  You mean the guy that ran from police who were yelling "Stop" and "Armed Police", who then boarded a crowded train, still running, and then reached into a rucksack.
  Yes, what a poor innocent soul.
55. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  More guns were sold in the US while Obama was in the White House than during any presidency in the past century.
56. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 08:19 · Score: 0
  
  Yet, it's the gun nuts that pledge their support to the fascist party. Hmm...
57. Re:Shut up by Falos · 2017-08-28 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  And we're, what, murdering them back? Don't hyperbole the response. If it bothers you that innocents are reaching for their lawyers at the first "Could we ask you a few..." then figure out why that reaction came to be.
  Also: You don't want to squirm over civilian scrutiny either, that means "you have something to hide" remember?
58. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 11:06 · Score: 0
  
  It is only important in police states like the US where the cops act like Nazi's. Most other countries that value freedom actually have reasonable rules around this and speaking honestly is actually going to work in your favour rather than against you whereas keeping silent and refusing to answer basic questions will work against you.
59. Re:Shut up by kwbauer · 2017-08-28 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  They are (or have already become) but fail to understand that they are. Try asking a reasonable question that can actually be answered next time.
60. Re:Shut up by kwbauer · 2017-08-28 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  Well, yeah. See above for that bit about Europe and fascism. The US has that little bit about being allowed to be uncommunicative with the police and it not being able to be used against for the exact reason that the British have been abusing it for well over 250 years. What do you think that quaint little war that George lost was all about? That the crown was being irresponsible with all the freedom it was handing out?
61. Re: Shut up by KGIII · 2017-08-28 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not white, but I fit that description.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
62. Re:Shut up by martyros · 2017-08-28 20:35 · Score: 1
  
  I think the idea is, if it's something obvious like, "Where were you last night?" "I was visiting my parents in Devon." That might be something you were reasonably expected to mention. The problem is when you get to things you might not want to mention: "I was with my neighbor's wife", or "I was cooking crystal meth" (which is bad but not as bad as murdering someone). Are those things that you might "reasonbly be expected to mention"?
  I would hope that if when arrested I said, "I'd like to speak to a lawyer first", and then gave a statement immediately afterwards, that if asked in court, "Why didn't you mention this when you were arrested?", a jury would buy "I'm from the US and that's what you do in the US: You never say anything until you talk to a lawyer." But it would certainly be better if that were the law.
  
  --
  TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
63. Re:Shut up by vipw · 2017-08-28 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  Poe's Law?
64. Re:Shut up by beastofburdon · 2017-08-29 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  The people have always been the enemy of the police, and they always will be. It was not an accident, it was by design.
65. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-31 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  You mean the guy that ran from police who were yelling "Stop" and "Armed Police", who then boarded a crowded train, still running, and then reached into a rucksack.
  Is there some sort of name for this psychological disorder? Is it some sort of narcissism? I'm referring to the belief by many police officers and their supporters that the officers are the center of attention to such a degree that everyone can hear and understand them at all times and instantly comprehend what they want, and who they're talking to, and recognize their absolute authority. The world is full of noises, people yelling, etc. but the police expect people to magically hear their voices, even when they're deaf, or wearing headphones, or joined a protest at 9:30 after a police officer on a garbled megaphone gave vague orders to disperse at 9:15 half a mile away, etc. It's always absolutely stunning how unaware the police seem to be about how communication actually works.
66. Re:Shut up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-04 10:45 · Score: 0
  
  In the UK you will still want to get a solicitor in with you, and given that you are entitled to free representation in all police station interviews, you should do this if you happen to be in this situation - guilty or not. Even a local random duty solicitor is going to be a lot better than just yourself.
  The solicitor will give you advice beforehand, tell you whether to talk or not, and they should assist during the interview if the police become sneaky or aggressive or try to catch you out with complex wording.
  Keeping silent or not cooperating out of principle can lead you into a huge amount of issues, especially if you have no reason to be silent or not cooperate. Sure, they can't unlock your phone forcibly, but if there's nothing incriminating on there, and indeed if there is stuff that might help you (location history, for example), unlock it.
  And you reply at your own speed, and you stay calm, and you can request private solicitor time at any point.
  I guess if you are guilty and you can't not self-incriminate, then you will have to be silent if that's your only option. But you can't be silent, go away and think up a good alibi, and then use it later on, without that being raised as an issue in a court case.
Justice in Murica by volodymyrbiryuk · 2017-08-28 00:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

The saddest thing abouth the whole situation is that in the majority of cases getting 40 years in a federal prison vs walking free is matter of how big your bank account is.

--
sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
1. Re:Justice in Murica by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 00:14 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  You make it sound like it was different elsewhere. It's always about connections and money. The more you have of both, the more equal you are.
2. Re: Justice in Murica by that+this+is+not+und · 2017-08-28 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  The tricky part isn't wether this guy 'did it' or not.
3. Re:Justice in Murica by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 00:47 · Score: 0
  
  The answer is money! Now, what was the question?
4. Re:Justice in Murica by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-08-28 01:04 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The saddest thing abouth the whole situation is that in the majority of cases getting 40 years in a federal prison vs walking free is matter of how big your bank account is.
  Or in this case, who you piss off. Chances are Wannacry was a state-sponsored attack (probably by our own nation) to cause a distraction from politics, it failed because a vigilante decided to poke at it and stumbled upon a weakness to stop it. That kind of thing doesn't go unpunished (Hell, they probably used the stolen cards to donate to his legal defense in order to make it look worse on him,) and the guy probably still has no idea why. It's practically straight out of Clockwork Orange.
5. Re:Justice in Murica by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 01:23 · Score: 0
  
  So true. Hans Reiser was also framed by his wife so she could run off to Russia and kidnap his children.
6. Re:Justice in Murica by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  Put the bong down. There's no way the US government is THAT capable of doing what you claim. The bureaucracy is like any other in Western Civilization. It's full of underqualified overpaid cogs who would rather be fishing than sitting in their cubicle, but the bennies are great. The nature of a conspiracy makes your argument fall apart because the US government is huge and not monolithic. There is no inherent way in the current system to hide apparatuses like what you're implying without someone, ANYONE blowing the whistle (even when that means the whistleblower gets nailed to the cross by said bureaucracy.)
  To think otherwise means your tinfoil hat is on too tight. I've seen time and again Western Democracies accused of being these vast cabals of rich people and totalitarians lulling people into sleepy servitude by manipulating everything from the water supply to TV news. It doesn't hold up to rational scrutiny. Sure there are people who wish to see these experiments in liberty die off... but you know who they are. They're not a shadow government, the Bilderbergs, or whoever you think is the latest secret Skull and Bones society (or the Freemasons...)
  Anyone you piss off with power/privilege will come after you. Look at Apple, Microsoft, etc. It's not a vast conspiracy of evil white men bent on making the rest of us suffer. The key is to vote the bums out. Stop the "but there are only two shitty choices" nonsense. There is always another choice, and the elected know this. With the Internet, it's painfully simple to find them. The trouble is, we bitch about it on Slashdot, rather than voting them all out of office. They think we don't care. And if we keep re-electing the stupid asses, maybe they're right.
7. Re:Justice in Murica by Opportunist · 2017-08-28 01:50 · Score: 2
  
  No, actually there are justice systems where your chance of getting out doesn't depend on having a lawyer that finds all sorts of loopholes. Over here, the judge has enough leeway to be more a deciding factor on whether you go free or to jail than your lawyer ever could be.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
8. Re:Justice in Murica by Opportunist · 2017-08-28 01:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What does one have to do with the other?
  If you can somehow point out how any government actor would have an incentive to see Reiser behind bars, we'll continue talking.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
9. Re:Justice in Murica by Opportunist · 2017-08-28 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but no. There is no choice.
  First of all, realize that to even understand this, an above average IQ is required. Which means that 50% of the population are already against you. But that would be ok, so far you'd have 50% voting for "someone else" and the other 50% splitting between the two sides of the DEMREP party.
  Sadly, of those 50% that do have an above room temperature IQ, about 20% benefit from the status quo, another 5-10% have already given up and simply don't vote anymore, another 5-10% simply don't care because they're too busy making money and/or finding out how to bail the sinking ship while they still can and another 10-20% are still locked in the "lost vote" narrative.
  But you can feel good. For once, YOU are the 1%!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
10. Re:Justice in Murica by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 01:57 · Score: 0
  
  So true. Hans Reiser was also framed by his wife so she could run off to Russia and kidnap his children.
  According to reliable sources, this guy and Hans Reiser were secret homosexual lovers working for the Russian FSB and the white supremacists.
  Informants close to the "closet-couple" claim urine-play while dressed as Nazis in drag was a part of their intimate relationship. Rumors concerning their possible partnership regarding rumored involvement in the child-sex-slave trade have not yet been disproven, along with suspicions they may have been involved with N. Korea obtaining nuclear-weapons-grade materials.
11. Re:Justice in Murica by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 02:08 · Score: 0
  
  Over here, the judge has enough leeway to be more a deciding factor on whether you go free or to jail than your lawyer ever could be.
  You say that as if it's a good thing. I'd much rather the lawyer be the one fighting for me. At least I know he's on my side. In what you describe, the judge could just look at me, decide he doesn't like me and off I go. Why do people thing the justice department is impartial?
12. Re:Justice in Murica by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  Quite a bit really. Slashdort has a long history of claiming criminals are innocent and erecting elaborate conspiracy theories simply because the person was a techie. Hans and Ross being two prime examples.
13. Re:Justice in Murica by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  I mean that part is obvious. Look at the filesystem he made, wouldn't you think the entire government would be wanting to prosecute him?
14. Re:Justice in Murica by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-08-28 02:48 · Score: 0
  
  You sure do seem to follow government prosecution of cybercrimes closely for someone implying objectivity.
15. Re:Justice in Murica by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-08-28 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Put the bong down. There's no way the US government is THAT capable of doing what you claim.
  Are you joking? Wannacry was based entirely on leaked CIA exploits, a mere 2 days after the leak. Moreover there was no followup, there were thousands of leaked CIA exploits and this single potentially-world-shattering one was turned into malware and released. A) That's a clear sign they wanted to show the "danger" of leakers. B) That's a clear sign they wanted the kill switch to shut it off if it damaged too many of their assets. C) That's a clear sign that when they realized it didn't have the intended effect via the media they gave up and changed tactics.
  If this were a foreign power they wouldn't have stopped (and probably wouldn't have even included the kill switch,) if this were some kid out for the "lulz" they wouldn't have stopped because they didn't get caught. There's only one group it could logically be: the people who are pissed off their exploits leaked.
16. Re:Justice in Murica by HornWumpus · 2017-08-28 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  I have it on good authority that English judges only 'bang their gavels', 'stomp their feet' and 'waggle their wigs' (for stunning effect).
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
17. Re:Justice in Murica by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  Murdering your wife is a cybercrime?
18. Re:Justice in Murica by Opportunist · 2017-08-28 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  I would rather believe that a ton of sysadmins had reason to off his wife and frame him...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
19. Re:Justice in Murica by Opportunist · 2017-08-28 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Since judges over here don't have to get reelected by idiots but rather have to defend their decisions against their peers (at least if they want to have any chance to ever come close to getting out of minimal claims court, i.e. have a career), you usually see some solid verdicts that not only the letter but the spirit of the law.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
20. Re:Justice in Murica by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  Hurr hurr hurr. Someone being brutally murdered by their husband is such a funnay thing to make light of. Oh my god, you're the Dane Cook of Slashdort!!
21. Re:Justice in Murica by Opportunist · 2017-08-28 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, just a misanthrope who frequents funerals and tells old ladies "Oh I'm sorry... but you're next".
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
22. Re:Justice in Murica by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 11:32 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, so hardcore.
23. Re:Justice in Murica by Opportunist · 2017-08-28 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, everyone has a hobby, ok?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ah yes, the anti-truth troll mod by drinkypoo · 2017-08-28 00:53 · Score: 0

You can't hide facts with mere moderation.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
1. Re:Ah yes, the anti-truth troll mod by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 01:23 · Score: 0
  
  You wouldn't know a fact if it jumped on your face and started to wiggle. But in this narrow case, you're actually correct... blind hog... acorn something something.
You silly guy! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 01:20 · Score: 0

The tricky part isn't wether this guy 'did it' or not.
Wait, you think justice in America is based on whether you're actually guilty or not?
Ahahahahahahahahaahahahahaha! *shits in pants* Ewwwww, Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Awe man! Turn off the TV and stop watching the cop porn!
Confusion about cities by Fencepost · 2017-08-28 02:41 · Score: 2

The case is in Milwaukee. Pretty sure he was being held there.

The company he works for (Kryptos Logic) is in LA. Pretty sure he's now allowed to travel there and work from the company offices.

As part of this he's apparently agreed to stay away from LA airports, so not clear how he's getting there (got there?). Road trip maybe?

The other question I have is whether he's going to be getting crap about working in the USA without a valid work visa. Does the judge allowing him to work cover that as well? Normally I'd say it wouldn't be an issue for someone usually working remotely, but in this case would prosecutors start fishing for other things they might charge him with?

--
fencepost
just a little off
1. Re:Confusion about cities by jonwil · 2017-08-28 03:15 · Score: 2
  
  If they are worried about the guy skipping the country (to the point they are insisting he avoid airports) why don't they just ask him to surrender his passport so he cant leave the country. (it happens all the time when people are released on bail or otherwise let out of jail, they are forced to surrender their passport and not to leave the country)
2. Re:Confusion about cities by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty sure it's illegal to take the queens property from her subjects.
  What I don't get is why the fuck britain doesn't get him the fuck out of there.
  These charges are obviously bullshit.
  Fucking france lets pedos and murderers walk around because they are french.
  Why can't the UK?
3. Re:Confusion about cities by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  I suspect that he has already had to surrender his passport, but last time I looked at a map the USA had land and sea borders without 100% police coverage.
Fnord fnord fnord by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 03:06 · Score: 0

Yeah, that's so true Mr. Fnord. I can't believe you found me out so easy, Mr. Fnord. I guess my whole life is over now that Mr. Fnord found me out.
1. Re:Fnord fnord fnord by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-08-28 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  Also AC's don't come back to check their posts unless they're vested shills.
2. Re:Fnord fnord fnord by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  Because anyone cares what a seven digit UID user with no karma thinks? LOL.
3. Re:Fnord fnord fnord by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-08-28 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Oh look, your shill-bot is double-posting.
4. Re:Fnord fnord fnord by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  Oh look, little shitberg newfag with a seven digit UID thinks he's important.
5. Re:Fnord fnord fnord by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-08-28 14:21 · Score: 1
  
  More important than a lowly AC by any measure.
What a stupid reply! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 03:24 · Score: 0

So to you police killing people only becomes a problem when, olet's say, 20% of all daily enocunters end with shooting a civilian???
Killing someone is THE MOST EXTREME EVENT POSSIBLE. It is over, finished, the person is DEAD, you moron.
1. Re:What a stupid reply! by BronsCon · 2017-08-28 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  It, as anything else, becomes a problem when it's no longer worthy of a news report. When something is news, that means precisely that it is not a common occurrence.
  
  Imagine if that were not true. Same headline, every day: Sun Rose Again After Setting Last Night.
  
  When I stop hearing about police shootings, I'll either be relieved that things have settled down, or terrified that they've become the norm; which one will depend entirely on what news replaces them. Until then, I'll stay out of the way of police in general and, if I'm ever a first responder at an incident to which they report, will present myself very early on as willing and able to either help or the the fuck out of their way, at their sole option.
  
  Yes, I'm white and yes, I realize that gives me that option where others may not have that luxury, if you want to call being able to be a decent human being without fear of being shot a luxury. I prefer to think of it as a luxury and benefit afforded to those I may help, regardless of their race. But, then, race is only an issue if you choose to make it one. We, as a nation, have chosen to do just that, sadly.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
2. Re:What a stupid reply! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  It's more like there are bad cops who are responsible for a death maybe 1 in a million times. And there are bad criminals on 20% of the 5 million police calls who cause violence 1 in 100 times. So disarming cops would prevent one death from bad cops for every 10,000 from other criminals or whatever. I don't think it's stupid to want to save 10,000 and to figure out what we can do to better prevent the one death from bad cops.
  I mean, there are individual killers responsible for more deaths, even more police deaths, than the half dozen or so incidents that are the outrages du jour. You hear about most of the bad cops and a negligible amount of the bad guys stopped.
3. Re:What a stupid reply! by Cederic · 2017-08-28 22:28 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure that anybody's said that innocent people dying as a result of police activity isn't a problem.
  It is possible though to demand improved training and a culture shift within the police without shitting yourself every time you see a policeman.
  Judging by the responses and moderation on this topic I should invest in adult diapers, there's clearly a serious fucking demand for them.
4. Re:What a stupid reply! by Nidi62 · 2017-08-29 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  So to you police killing people only becomes a problem when, olet's say, 20% of all daily enocunters end with shooting a civilian???
  Killing someone is THE MOST EXTREME EVENT POSSIBLE. It is over, finished, the person is DEAD, you moron.
  No. In fact I have argued on Slashdot multiple times that police should be directed to fire only in response to an actual threat to themselves or a civilian, and that "I feared for my life" is not an excuse. Police have body armor and training, and go into the profession knowing there is a chance of death. Personally, I feel that police need to go back to being "officers of the peace" instead of "law enforcement officers". Of course, since Trump just rolled back the Obama administration ban on providing surplus military equipment to local police forces, things are only going to get worse. What the fuck do police need bayonets for, not to mention MRAPs and 40mm grenade launchers. Just a few summers ago I once saw a camouflaged State Patrol hummer doing a traffic stop. It's ridiculous.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Four hours is not enough by magarity · 2017-08-28 03:39 · Score: 1

only allowed to leave his residence for four hours each week... "has too much freedom while awaiting trial and may skip the country."
That's more than enough time to notice he hasn't come home and still catch him in the TSA line.
Fnord fnord fnord by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-28 05:24 · Score: 0

Cool story, 7-digit-UID Mr. Fnord. You're so brilliant and smart Mr. Fnord. I guess my government job is now over Mr. Fnord.
Re: My top guy? by slashrio · 2017-08-28 15:50 · Score: 1

You must be joking.

--
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.