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

111–120 of 143 posts

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#111

Post by reitanqild »

ad_hominem wrote: post #48
madez wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is so because they are based on the archaic principle of guilt and redemption, and not an ethical system that considers the well-being of everybody involved.

Right, if only America were as "ethical" as other countries like the one that gives a person who murders 80 children a little 3-room apartment with a Playstation 2, personal PC, kitchen, exercise area, etc. where they can write their memoirs

Speaking as someone who has possibly paid less than a millionth of his playstation 2 I think it is kind of ok.

I would preferred they found him insane and ordered mandatory treatment for the rest of his life.

This might sound weird but it's not really IMO: being found insane was the only thing he feared.

As soon as he was sentenced to life in prison it was pretty clear he wouldn't appeal to a higher court. From what we know about him it seemed he would be fine with death penalty as well but Norway doesn't have that option.

Oh - and for why Norwegians are happy to let him have a playstation 2: I guess a good reason is that it makes it much harder for him to claim that he's being "tortured" etc. : )

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#112

Post by [deleted] »

mc32 wrote: post #88
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.

[deleted]

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#113

Post by wildmusings »

opaque wrote: post #107
wildmusings wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd be shocked if police don't try to question every single arrested person before they've spoken to a lawyer. It is the best chance the police have to conduct an effective interrogation. You'd be surprised at the number of people who talk their way into prison. There's a reason why the most important legal advice is "ask for a lawyer and shut up".

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#114

Post by [deleted] »

uiri wrote: post #55
evgen wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree with a lot of your points but I still believe he had his rights violated. He was denied access to a lawyer for 48 hours. He doesn't even know who his codefendant is . How can anyone mount a proper defense (the strongest form of which would be "I don't know this person and I've never communicated with him") without that information? How can one properly exercise one's habeas corpus rights (that is, challenging…

[deleted]

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#115

Post by santoriv »

wildmusings wrote: post #87
santoriv wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My understanding is that the statistics you provided do not apply to federal court. As I understand it, this Marcus going to be tried in federal court.

In any case, the United States has the second highest incarceration rate in the world.

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

Either the US has the second highest rate of criminal activity in the world or an unusually high rate of wrongful convictions.

When Saddam Hussein won 99.96% percent of the vote in the 1995 election, we said "The fix is in" but when federal prosecutors get a 99.8% conviction rate, we say that they must be really great at their jobs!

We have a moral obligation to subject the criminal justice to serious scrutiny since so many lives are at stake - not just repeat some platitudes about how the system is stacked in favor of the defendants (not saying you were doing that but the OP certainly was).

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#116

Post by pja »

wildmusings wrote: post #90
gjulianm wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ev…

Sure: The UK moved to a qualified right to silence some time ago.

On the flip side, UK police are far more constrained in their actions when interviewing suspects than US police are:

@ UK police are not permitted to lie to suspects in interviews

@ Interviews must be recorded from start to finish.

@ No abusive use of plea bargains: we don’t do the “take this plea bargain or risk being locked up for 60 years” thing at all.

I’m sure there are more, but those are the things that spring to mind immediately.

I’m not going to pretend that everything in the UK is sweetness and light regarding our police, but the idea that the US is a haven of civil rights compared to the UK is just completely wrong-headed.

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#117

Post by hysan »

thieving_magpie wrote: post #28

Still waiting for actual details related to the charges to come out before rushing forward with my opinion on the matter.

I'm not and here's why.

1. If evidence proves afterwards that the handling of the arrest was just and for good reason, then I'll admit my fault and apologize. My error in overreaction will mean nothing in the long run.

2. However, if my overreaction is correct but I withheld it, it would be far too late to point out errors by the government later on. News moves too quickly in this age to call out bad actors later. Now is the appropriate time to make as much noise about the potential abuse of power by the government.

3. The government's handing so far shows that they too understand this principle. They are acting in a way that best suits them and are using the fact that reasonable people are going to say exactly what you said to drag this out. At the very least, this practice of theirs without statement is worth calling out.

So my question for all of those who side with your stance is, will you be willing and able to drum up news in major outlets if he government turns out to have acted unjustly?

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#118

Post by dghughes »

wildmusings wrote: post #49
celticninja wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are not a US citizen you have fewer rights if you are arrested in the US. Even fewer if it's via extraordinary rendition.

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.

Even if that's true in Canada (similar to UK laws) you're not going to get sentenced to a ridiculous amount of time in jail like you would be in the USA. Especially for crimes that don't involve the death of a person.

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#119

Post by tarboreus »

santoriv wrote: post #115
wildmusings wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My understanding is that the statistics you provided do not apply to federal court . As I understand it, this Marcus going to be tried in federal court . In any case, the United States has the second highest incarceration rate in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcera... Either the US has the second highest rate of criminal activity in the world or an unusually high rate of wrongful c…

The incarceration rate is mostly due to our really, really long sentences. Not that that's great, either.

Re: Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech

#120

Post by 4gtpw9eml »

wildmusings wrote: post #113
opaque wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd be shocked if police don't try to question every single arrested person before they've spoken to a lawyer. It is the best chance the police have to conduct an effective interrogation. You'd be surprised at the number of people who talk their way into prison. There's a reason why the most important legal advice is "ask for a lawyer and shut up".

Scotland, part of the UK, complete right to silence and police aren't allowed to interview you without a solicitor (lawyer) present; unless you specifically decline one.

Overall though the UK is better than the US. You only have to watch a couple of episodes of John Oliver to know that!

Post reply on HN