Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech • Hacker News Board

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#81

Post by syshum » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 2:16 PM UTC

Fnoord wrote: post #42

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess he has a different opinion on "They might as well execute him." But it's nevertheless interesting how easy people are with other peoples lives. And yes if you go to a different country, be aware of their laws. "The punishments are way out of proportion to the crimes." Don't go to the US. http://kottke.org/13/06/you-commit-three-felonies-a-day Also Dr. Ferris.

> Don't go to the US. Yup, or rather, try to stay within your own jurisdiction. Right now, SHA2017 [1] is going on in The Netherlands. There's also the CCC, Chaos Computer Congress in Germany. Besides that, there's also a Camp called CCC every other few years. Someone from the UK could've stayed in the EU, but didn't. [1] https://sha2017.org

Then they would have just filed for extradition

They have done that before with UK citizens charged with online crimes, Richard O'Dwyer is an example of that

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#82

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 2:16 PM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #77

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AlphaBay was a darknet market. As you might expect, it trafficked in illegal goods. Since authorities seized it and shut it down, they've been able to read the site's data, and can now prosecute all sorts of illegal actions that happened there.

They didn't shut it down immediately, they run it for a few weeks collecting information. It's quite likely that they've used it to either directly compromise or unmask real world assets of it's users beyond what would be possible from just reading some logs.

Quite likely, though the logs would be immensely valuable on their own.

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#83

Post by ithought » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 2:18 PM UTC

evgen wrote: post #37

maaaats wrote: post #24

Guilty or not, this seems more like a kidnapping than an arrest. Can they really ignore all rights as they see fit?

Please outline the rights that were denied to him. The article that we are commenting about seems to have a completely deluded sense of what his rights are, but maybe we can start the discussion around his specific rights. Contra the original article, a 23 year-old does not have a fundamental right to talk to mommy and daddy once arrested. Law enforcement is under no obligation to arrest you as you arrive in country…

Yet with some high profile defendants, the government gives immense discretion to them by communicating with their lawyers ahead of time and arranging an amicable surrender.

The problem with your post is the problem with the federal government. They exploit technicalities to punish innocent people and they game the system for their own extraneous reasons.

Disclaimer: I've had several interactions with the FBI, federal prosecutors and senior executives at Homeland Security, that have demonstrated to me that they can be malicious, incompetent and oh so human. There's a two tier system of justice in the US, one that has access to former government officials who work in the private sector, who will do near anything necessary to protect a wealthy and privilege class of people.

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#84

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 2:18 PM UTC

rurban wrote: post #50

Call me very sceptical. Where did he all has the money from, which he spent in Vegas? It looks very suspicious to me. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4762608/Marcus-Hutch... * Rented a Lamborghini, and wanted to rent a helicopter flight to the Grand Canyon. * Stayed at a £1,950-a-night mansion rented with seven friends with Vegas' largest private pool. Who paid for this? * Didn't attend the 2 conferences ther…

[deleted]

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#85

Post by santoriv » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 2:18 PM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #56

The tech community's reaction to this is frankly laughable and embarrassing. The man has been accused of a crime. A grand jury has seen enough evidence to indict him. This is the United States of America, where as someone accused of a crime he will have more rights than he would in just about any other jurisdiction in the world.[1] Yet so many in this forum and elsewhere are spreading ridiculous conspiracy theories a…

In Japan, for example, one is guilty until proven innocent. They have a 99% conviction rate.

Over course, in America, where things are much better and one is innocent until proven guilty, they only have a 99.8% conviction rate in federal court.

Yay America.

http://justicedenied.org/wordpress/archives/3190

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#86

Post by dogma1138 » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 2:18 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #29

awinder wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s going to go through a trial by his peers, he’s not likely going to receive the max sentence, and even then he likely wouldn’t serve the max sentence for a nonviolent crime (he’d be paroled). Compare that to being convicted without a fair trial, being sent to a labor camp, and running the risk of being sent home in a body bag. I understand hyperbole but let’s not kid ourselves, NK is one of the worst places in th…

>>He’s going to go through a trial by his peers No if he goes to trial it will be a trial with humans on the jury but that will be as close to his "peer" group as it will be 1. They will not be from his nation, but will be Americans 2. Most of them will likely be Computer illiterate, as the prosecution will excuse anyone that even owns a computer 3. They will like be older and outside of age peer group No it will not…

This is a silly argument.

It's like saying that drug dealers should be judged by a jury made up of drug dealers and users.

I don't think you understand what a "peer" means in this context.

Trial by jury of your peers was implemented to prevent the church and royalty from judging the commons.

Or to be more exact it's one of the first marks of separation of power; people who make up the law aren't the ones who also judge you.

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#87

Post by wildmusings » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 2:20 PM UTC

santoriv wrote: post #85

wildmusings wrote: post #56

The tech community's reaction to this is frankly laughable and embarrassing. The man has been accused of a crime. A grand jury has seen enough evidence to indict him. This is the United States of America, where as someone accused of a crime he will have more rights than he would in just about any other jurisdiction in the world.[1] Yet so many in this forum and elsewhere are spreading ridiculous conspiracy theories a…

In Japan, for example, one is guilty until proven innocent. They have a 99% conviction rate. Over course, in America, where things are much better and one is innocent until proven guilty, they only have a 99.8% conviction rate in federal court. Yay America. http://justicedenied.org/wordpress/archives/3190

It's in the low 90% range recently, and hovered between 70% and 90% for the last half century. Federal prosecutors don't pursue every case that lands on their desk, and they direct law enforcement toward the most winnable cases too.

If the conviction rate was a lot lower, I'd be more concerned that the government was bringing so many cases without sufficient evidence.

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#88

Post by mc32 » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 2:23 PM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #56

The tech community's reaction to this is frankly laughable and embarrassing. The man has been accused of a crime. A grand jury has seen enough evidence to indict him. This is the United States of America, where as someone accused of a crime he will have more rights than he would in just about any other jurisdiction in the world.[1] Yet so many in this forum and elsewhere are spreading ridiculous conspiracy theories a…

If you want to see the community turn against him it seems all you have to do is accuse him of coincidentally agreeing with Trump on some issues --just notice how Assange's support in the community has withered since some of the things he says undermines the Russia allegations. Whereas most supported him when the same information undermined American credibility.

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#89

Post by opaque » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 2:24 PM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #56

The tech community's reaction to this is frankly laughable and embarrassing. The man has been accused of a crime. A grand jury has seen enough evidence to indict him. This is the United States of America, where as someone accused of a crime he will have more rights than he would in just about any other jurisdiction in the world.[1] Yet so many in this forum and elsewhere are spreading ridiculous conspiracy theories a…

> He has the unqualified right to remain silent and to a jury trial in which illegally gathered evidence is excluded, neither of which he would have in the UK.

Er... go easy on the patriotism, mate. We have those.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...

The US system also has flaws not present in our system (at least for now) e.g. Plea Bargains.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/apr/27/traditional-tria...

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#90

Post by wildmusings » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 2:26 PM UTC

gjulianm wrote: post #73

wildmusings wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is simply not true. Everyone on US soil has the same rights when accused of a crime. Incidentally, the rights of the accused are stronger in the US than in any other jurisdiction in the world. He has the unqualified right to remain silent and to a jury trial in which illegally gathered evidence is excluded. He would have neither of those in the UK.

What? That is a gigantic lie. IANAL, but just a quick search reveals that illegal evidence is not allowed [1] and there is a right to remain silent [2] (which seems to be held even by the European Court [3]) so I don't know what you are talking about, 1: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/confession_and_breaches_o... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an... 3: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/…

You really shouldn't accuse me of telling a "gigantic lie" when you are wrong.

In the UK, police can use your silence at time of questioning to cast doubt on future exculpatory claims that you make. In the US, the government can never make that argument in court. So in the US, the best course of action is, without qualification, to remain silent until speaking to a lawyer. In the UK, doing that can be presented as evidence of your guilt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...

The United States is the only country to take the position that some police misconduct must automatically result in the suppression of physical evidence. The rule applies whether the misconduct is slight or serious, and without regard to the gravity of the crime or the power of the evidence. “Foreign countries have flatly rejected our approach,” said Craig M. Bradley, an expert in comparative criminal law at Indiana University. “In every other country, it’s up to the trial judge to decide whether police misconduct has risen to the level of requiring the exclusion of evidence.” https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/us/19exclude.html