Slashdot Mirror
US Piles New Charges on Marcus Hutchins (aka MalwareTech) (bleepingcomputer.com)
British cyber-security researcher Marcus Hutchins, who has been credited with stopping the spread of WannaCry, is now facing four more charges related to separate malware he is alleged to have created. BleepingComputer reports: According to court documents, the new charges are for allegedly creating another piece of malware and for lying to the FBI. Hutchins had previously been accused of creating and selling the Kronos banking trojan last year. But in a superseding indictment filed this week, U.S. prosecutors claim Hutchins also coded and sold another piece of malware called the UPAS Kit. According to US prosecutors, UPAS Kit "used a form grabber and web injects to intercept and collect personal information from a protected computer," and "allowed for the unauthorized exfiltration of information from protected computers." The U.S. government claims Hutchins sold this second malware strain in July 2012 to a person going by the online pseudonym of Aurora123, who later infected US users. Hutchins expressed disappointment on the development, tweeting, "Spend months and $100k+ fighting this case, then they go and reset the clock by adding even more bullshit charges like 'lying to the FBI.' We require more minerals." In a subsequent tweet, he requested people to help him with the cost of legal proceedings.
Maybe so?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
"Lying to the FBI" is what you get charged with when they can't find anything else.
Hell, they'll even manufacture a claim of "witness tampering" over a one-minute phone call and a text saying "We need to talk".
The "Lying to the FBI" (or other lying to cops) charge is one of the several reasons you Never Talk to Police.
See the above video for a law professor's lecture on many more.
Instead you ALWAYS exercise your Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent. ESPECIALLY if you're innocent. ANYTHING you tell them "can and will be used against you".
Even if it's true, somebody else may have told them something conflicting - through error or malice - and the police and prosecutors may then decide you're lying. Bingo: Both a criminal charge and the burden of proof switches from them proving you're guilty to you proving you're innocent.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The government has infinite resources to deploy when it decides you have to get 'got'. I've long thought that we need a new form of Miranda in which if you're involved in a civil or criminal matter vs the government and you prevail, you get all your legal fees reimbursed, aka "loser pays". That's the only chance there is of leveling the playing field.
The Constitution applies to all people on US soil, not just citizens.
He should have never come to the US... the US is known for kidnapping people that make it uncomfortable. North Korean/Iranian tactics right here on US soil.
*allegedly* I understand that the lying new-speak fascists and bible-banging evangelical death cultist fucktards now run the US, but we still have the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"
You've ... got a little froth right there ... on the corner ... thought you might want to know.
You sound like someone who is very pleasant and who definitely leaves the house often!
England also has a 'right to remain silent'. But they can hold your silence against you, if you later claim a defense you didn't speak about during initial interrogation.
Not an English shyster, but silence is still your best bet. England also has volumes of unenforced laws, they all commit 3 felonies/day, same as Americans.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The Prison-Industrial Complex of America. Big Corrections is hungry for profits.
It's not like refusing to even talk to the police or pleading the 5th to every question isn't going to make you look really suspicious even if you're completely innocent. Oh wait...
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
I know "Innocent until proven guilty" is kind of a cornerstone of western legal systems, but it seems like many are taking it a tad too far with the general stance here is that he can't possibly be guilty. Even thou there's loads of ex cybercriminals working in the infosec industry these days, many of them openly and some of them are even open about the convictions they've received.
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
The Constitution applies to all people on US soil, not just citizens.
Except the ones accused of being terrorists, or knowing terrorists, or living in an area where terrorists were once suspected to also live. They don't get rights. Especially not the parts about "speedy trial" and the right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" (6th amendment).
It's not like refusing to even talk to the police or pleading the 5th to every question isn't going to make you look really suspicious even if you're completely innocent. Oh wait...
No you're already suspicious. The point is not giving an inch of rope to the hangman.
Also nickname checks out :-)
England also has a 'right to remain silent'. But they can hold your silence against you, if you later claim a defense you didn't speak about during initial interrogation.
In England, maybe, but not in America.
You can't bring up a new defense after the trial, but no, you don't have to bring up a defense until after you talk to a lawyer, and being silent before you consult a lawyer explicitly can not legally be used against you.
In the US, your silence can be used against when under oath, sometimes, but not usually otherwise. IE if you take the witness stand, you cannot just answer the defenses questions, once you answer questions about an event, generally you have to answer all questions about that event, or your silence can be used to weigh your other testimony. But since testimony given to a police... is not "on the record" and it cannot be brought up in your defense, you can go silent at anytime. I think because the prosecution can choose to drop all of it at anytime, they don't have to have a way to counter claims you made then.
The Constitution of the US applies to the US government everywhere and for all purposes. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the US government from compelling anyone (US citizen or not) anywhere (on US soil or not) to testify against himself.
There is no allegedly. He's admitted to selling Malware for cash. The proven guilty is self admittance.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
The 5th amendment enumerates a right, but it is couched in the form of a restraint on the governemnt's power to compel testimony: "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".
In theory, anyone anywhere has the right not to answer a question posed by a member of the US government or their representative if responding might cause them to provide incriminating evidence. In practice, if you are in a foreign country, good luck exercising this right: the US will just have their local counterpart put the question to you and you may have no such right to silence under the local laws. Those statements given to a foreign official can now be used as evidence against you in a US court.
He's far from rich. He's got quite a bit of people donating to his legal fund. A lot of people. And a lot of people helping for free on his legal as well.
Tell me where it says they're not. Since you've read it, that'll be quicker.
Not in the Constitution directly. It comes form a USSC decision in Boumediene vs Bush.
Maybe you should think before you talk? Because talking actually gives you the opportunity to lower suspicion while refusing to do so can only have the exact opposite effect.
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."