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

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.

Comments

Bitcoin

[Anonymous Coward]

This wouldn't happen with Bitcoin, no rollbacks, just cold hard money.

Re:Bitcoin

[DontBeAMoran]

And all you have to do is pay 5% of your Bitcoins and wait four days for the transaction to confirm!

Re: Bitcoin

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

Re: Bitcoin

[DontBeAMoran]

They can disagree with him all they want, but how is "so no one can see your post" not (at least partial) censorship?

Re: Bitcoin

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

Re:Bitcoin

[tomhath]

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.

Re: Bitcoin

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Bitcoin

[Immerman]

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.

Re:Bitcoin

[freeze128]

Bitcoin is anything but "cold, hard money".

Re: Bitcoin

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Bitcoin

[slashrio]

I think there are bitcoins, and they reside at their respective addresses of which the owners hold the private keys.

Re: Bitcoin

[BronsCon]

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.

Re:Bitcoin

[Immerman]

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.

Re: Bitcoin

[Ol Olsoc]

That's unacceptable to me.

I'm unacceptably offended.

Re: Bitcoin

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

Re: Bitcoin

[KGIII]

You silly cow. Moo says the cow. Moo! You're all cows!

Err... I can afford the karma.

Re: Bitcoin

[Ol Olsoc]

You silly cow. Moo says the cow. Moo! You're all cows!

Err... I can afford the karma.

Ahhhhh, Thank you! 8^)

Re:Bitcoin

[slashrio]

Thank you for the better explanation.

Re: Bitcoin

[KGIII]

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.

Ouch

[wonkey_monkey]

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"?

Re: Ouch

[dougdonovan]

damned if i do, damned if i dont. shit happens. moving along now.

Re:Ouch

[DNS-and-BIND]

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.

Re:Ouch

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Ouch

[slashrio]

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.

Re:Ouch

[ebvwfbw]

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.

Misleading Title

[CanadianMacFan]

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

[Paradise Pete]

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.

Re:Shut up

[Anonymous Coward]

a longer video about why you shouldn't talk to the police, at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

Re:Shut up

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Shut up

[DRJlaw]

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.

Re:Shut up

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Shut up

[ledow]

"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.

Re:Shut up

[ledow]

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.

Re:Shut up

[martyros]

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."

Re:Shut up

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Shut up

[slashrio]

You clearly didn't follow his link and read the article, did you?

Re:Shut up

[slashrio]

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!"

Re:Shut up

[Dan East]

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.

Re:Shut up

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

Re:Shut up

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Shut up

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

Re:Shut up

[vipw]

Oh. And what's the reason all the other OECD countries aren't becoming fascist police states?

Re:Shut up

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Shut up

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Shut up

[nasch]

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.

Re:Shut up

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Shut up

[fafalone]

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.

Re:Shut up

[thegarbz]

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.

Re:Shut up

[thegarbz]

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.

Re:Shut up

[ledow]

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.

Re:Shut up

[Falos]

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?

Re:Shut up

[kwbauer]

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.

Re:Shut up

[kwbauer]

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?

Re: Shut up

[KGIII]

I'm not white, but I fit that description.

Re:Shut up

[martyros]

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.

Re:Shut up

[vipw]

Poe's Law?

Justice in Murica

[volodymyrbiryuk]

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.

Re: Justice in Murica

[that this is not und]

The tricky part isn't wether this guy 'did it' or not.

Re:Justice in Murica

[NicknameUnavailable]

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.

Re:Justice in Murica

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:Justice in Murica

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:Justice in Murica

[Opportunist]

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%!

Re:Justice in Murica

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Justice in Murica

[NicknameUnavailable]

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.

Re:Justice in Murica

[HornWumpus]

I have it on good authority that English judges only 'bang their gavels', 'stomp their feet' and 'waggle their wigs' (for stunning effect).

Re:Justice in Murica

[Opportunist]

I would rather believe that a ton of sysadmins had reason to off his wife and frame him...

Re:Justice in Murica

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:Justice in Murica

[Opportunist]

Nah, just a misanthrope who frequents funerals and tells old ladies "Oh I'm sorry... but you're next".

Re:Justice in Murica

[Opportunist]

Hey, everyone has a hobby, ok?

Re:He too slow

[arglebargle_xiv]

Punctuation, spelling, grammar, and the ability to post a cogent statment are your friends....

A Trump speech, in other words.

Re:He too slow

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bold those words?

Or is grunting your only communication?

Re:He too slow

[Ol Olsoc]

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..

Re:He too slow

[erikkemperman]

Why bold those words?

Muphry's Law

Confusion about cities

[Fencepost]

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?

Re:Confusion about cities

[jonwil]

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)

Four hours is not enough

[magarity]

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.

Re:What a stupid reply!

[BronsCon]

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.

Re:Fnord fnord fnord

[NicknameUnavailable]

Oh look, your shill-bot is double-posting.

Re:Fnord fnord fnord

[NicknameUnavailable]

More important than a lowly AC by any measure.

Re: My top guy?

[slashrio]

You must be joking.

Re:What a stupid reply!

[Cederic]

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.

Re:What a stupid reply!

[Nidi62]

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.