Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

doublepulsar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 143 posts

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#101

Post by eatitraw »

zitterbewegung wrote: post #14
josh2600 wrote: post #13

.

So, if I paid someone $1 to commit murder then it wouldn't be egregious? People are judged on the crime they committed not how they benefitted off of it. EDIT: Note the parent used to claim that $2000 for Malware isn't worth going to Jail for 40 years because its only $2000.

> So, if I paid someone $1 to commit murder then it wouldn't be egregious?

A straw man. Stealing $1 is certainly isn't as serious than stealing $100k. And creating malware is closer to theft rather than murdering people.

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#102

Post by sanderjd »

syshum wrote: post #92
dogma1138 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 jud…

Well I would say drug dealing and using should not be a crime in the first place but that is off topic. >Trial by jury of your peers was implemented to prevent the church and royalty from judging the commons. I understand the purpose and you seem to have taken my comment to mean something it does not. It is also ironic that you mention the church because given the geographic location where this trial will likely take…

What, specifically, is your problem with jury selection? Prosecutors don't get to pick the jury they want, they have a limited number of vetos, just like the defense. How would you like it to work?

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#103

Post by mannykannot »

dijit wrote: post #75
teuobk wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding grand jury indictments, it's very, very rare for a grand jury to refuse to indict somebody, so that isn't necessarily a good measure of the quality of the case against the accused. Of roughly 162,000 federal cases brought before grand juries in 2010, indictments were returned for all but 11 of them. https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-i...

Devils Advocate here. Could that be that law enforcement do not bring cases to the grand jury unless there is significant evidence already? If they have clear requirements it could just be that they're being selective about what they submit.

I would hope that were the case, but evidence, e.g. from convictions reversed on account of DNA evidence, show that it is not always so.

While the grand jury system may appear to protect innocent defendants, I wonder if it does the opposite. A grand jury might have a disposition to allow a case to proceed when in doubt, on the grounds that the matter will be sorted out in a trial, while the fact that a grand jury has made a decision may bias the trial jury towards conviction.

Another practice that has demonstrably been abused is the offer of something approaching immunity in exchange for testimony. We know there is a co-defendant, but nothing else so far in that regard.

The swatting of as respected a character as Brian Krebs shows that law enforcement can be manipulated into a precipitate action, especially when there is a deadline, and in this case, Hutchins was about to leave their jurisdiction.

I have no opinion as to whether Hutchins is guilty of anything, but I hope his case is dealt with quickly, and above all, justly.

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#104

Post by humanrebar »

wildmusings wrote: post #99
opaque wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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/trad…

> Er... go easy on the patriotism, mate. We have those. Despite your snarky tone, you are mistaken. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14935867

Honestly, the exclusionary principle seems to value the process of the trial over the actual pursuit of truth in the case. I'm fine with excluding evidence that is false or somehow contaminated, but it's hard for me to justify pretending a murder weapon wasn't found because of a procedural mistake.

There are surely other ways to enforce the relevant rights and procedures.

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#105

Post by opaque »

wildmusings wrote: post #99
opaque wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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/trad…

> Er... go easy on the patriotism, mate. We have those. Despite your snarky tone, you are mistaken. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14935867

"it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court"

"In every other country (UK), it’s up to the trial judge to decide whether police misconduct has risen to the level of requiring the exclusion of evidence."

I would regard these as features rather than bugs.

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#106

Post by wildmusings »

opaque wrote: post #105
wildmusings wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Er... go easy on the patriotism, mate. We have those. Despite your snarky tone, you are mistaken. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14935867

"it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court" "In every other country (UK), it’s up to the trial judge to decide whether police misconduct has risen to the level of requiring the exclusion of evidence." I would regard these as features rather than bugs.

As a layman, you do not have the training to reliably talk to police in a way that best protects your interests. The absolute right to remain silent means that you never have to weigh the need to speak immediately against having the benefit of an attorney's advice.

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#107

Post by opaque »

wildmusings wrote: post #106
opaque wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court" "In every other country (UK), it’s up to the trial judge to decide whether police misconduct has risen to the level of requiring the exclusion of evidence." I would regard these as features rather than bugs.

As a layman, you do not have the training to reliably talk to police in a way that best protects your interests. The absolute right to remain silent means that you never have to weigh the need to speak immediately against having the benefit of an attorney's advice.

Well if you explain that (very reasonable argument) to the jury at your trial I'm sure they'll be understanding. In practice it would be interesting to know how many suspects are formally interviewed before a lawyer is present. Anecdotally I would think it's low, but I don't know.

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#108

Post by 0x0 »

masklinn wrote: post #46
0x0 wrote: post #41

Wonder if anything similar could have happened to the author of cURL had he not been denied boarding on a US flight - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643467

Probably not? Daniel Stenberg is a network protocols geek and software author, not a security researcher.

Lots of people seem to be confused about curl's role in other systems: https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/11/14/i-have-toyota-corola/

Maybe a similar confusion caused his boarding to be denied - but what if this is a case of similar confusion acted upon after the person arrived in the US? Or what if the cURL author was allowed to enter the US but whatever cause for denying him was flagged before he was to leave for home?

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#109

Post by awinder »

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…

So what’s the explanation for getting shipped home in a body bag, id love to push this ridiculous mental exercise to its inevitable absurd conclusion as fast as possible.

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#110

Post by masklinn »

jacquesm wrote: post #57
masklinn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not? Daniel Stenberg is a network protocols geek and software author, not a security researcher.

Yes, but his software has wide applications including being used in DDOS attacks, downloading copyrighted content and so on. I find it hard to get my head wrapped around the argument that gun manufacturers are somehow exempt from being at least at some level involved in the crimes perpetrated with the stuff they make but that for software we're going to have a completely different standard where simply making somethi…

> Yes, but his software has wide applications including being used in DDOS attacks, downloading copyrighted content and so on.

I guess that's technically true, but practically no more so than the PSF or the GCC team.

> I find it hard to get my head wrapped around the argument that gun manufacturers are somehow exempt from being at least at some level involved in the crimes perpetrated with the stuff they make but that for software we're going to have a completely different standard where simply making something and selling it rather than using it is the bar to clear.

There isn't really any argument, just politics (lobbying groups/companies/whatever) and familiarity (of lawmakers and judges, which is why people like Judge Posner are so important to our field).

Post reply on HN