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

Former Ubiquiti employee charged with stealing data and extorting company

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 244 posts

Re: Former Ubiquiti employee charged with stealing data and extorting company

#231

Post by novok »

sneak wrote: post #95
CurrentB wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any tips for how one might maintain composure enough to handle these situations if they ever find themselves in them? I imagine the obvious answer is just practice saying "no comment, I need my lawyer present" but I'm not convinced this would make one immune to their Jedi mind tricks when the day comes to exercise it

You are right: Having watched the "don't talk to the police" video over a half dozen times, I unwillingly volunteered information to a cop when in the moment. It's really hard to put into practice when someone domineering and armed is implicitly threatening you with arrest/violence for not doing precisely what they want you to do. I actually rehearse now, because police in the USA are so corrupt and unreliable. Somet…

How about the border when entering a country? What should you do in that case?

Re: Former Ubiquiti employee charged with stealing data and extorting company

#232

Post by dotBen »

CyanLite2 wrote: post #88
dotBen wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I have yet to understand why people talk to law enforcement instead of staying silent so as to not implicate themselves.) When the FBI knock at the door you totally do the whole "no comment/talk to my lawyer" thing. But what happens next if you're actually part of an investigation is they hand you a grand jury subpoena (which they were going to do anyway, even if you just talked willingly, because they have already…

Police often give the line, "It'll go better for you if you just tell me the truth now" or "You'll get a better deal if we don't get lawyers involved". This often spooks people into cooperating without lawyers and they end up taking the first deal they get. I'd like see some real legal experts weigh in on the legality of these pre-lawyer offers.

Not an expert but think it through (for US law): only prosecutors have the discretion to decide whether to bring charges and the severity of the charges they will bring. A LEO who says to you that they'll get you a better deal if you talk now is lying to you - which not only are they allowed to do, it's in their training to do so (specifically, investigators are trained to tell you what you need to hear to get you to cooperate). They don't have the authority to waive the rights and privileges of the prosecutor's discretion.

Re: Former Ubiquiti employee charged with stealing data and extorting company

#233

Post by Thorrez »

xwolfi wrote: post #126
Thorrez wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Theoretically it would go down if you did that. Why? If a company prints a single stock then sells it for $100, I would expect the company's market cap to go up by $100 since it now has $100 more dollars in its bank account.

Because the company printing a single stock is already a signal it is worth a little bit less. If you have N stock for capital valuation $V, each stock is worth $V/N. If you emit one more, you basically need either to argue your company total valuation should rise or you dilluted all stock to be worth now $V/(N+1). The company valuation is not stock price * stock count, which is your confusion, it's more tangible ass…

> Because the company printing a single stock is already a signal it is worth a little bit less.

Good point. But I was responding to someone who said "theoretically", which I took to mean ignoring psychology things like this and just looking at numbers. Of course "theoretically" can have many different meanings, and I might have been misunderstanding how that commenter was using it.

> it's more tangible asset + speculative future assets

When you sell a stock for $100 the tangible assets went up by $100. So the second equation is actually ($V+$100)/(N+1).

> Imagine, I dont know, a crypto asset

Bitcoin is a bit different because people believe Satoshi's coins are literally gone, lost. I don't think that happens with stocks.

Re: Former Ubiquiti employee charged with stealing data and extorting company

#234

Post by southerntofu »

iso1631 wrote: post #179
virogenesis wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about mikrotik, https://mikrotik.com/ I am a satisfied user of their software (and hardware) for the past 10years. If you don't mind the rather rustic interface, it should be as closest to a professional grade cisco as you can get.

Certainly better than Juniper SRXs and Cisco Firepowers, however if you have a lot of mangle rules you'll run into issues. Had a large amounts of drops and even more reorders with just 600M going through a 1036 with c.200 mangle rules. Haven't run into any issues with Fortigates, yet. Time will tell. Thats for Firewall/nat/router style devices, for wireless we've got a large number of unify flying saucers. I've use m…

> Fortigates

Are these running a free-software stack? Couldn't find info about it since fortinet website blocks Tor traffic.

Re: Former Ubiquiti employee charged with stealing data and extorting company

#235

Post by southerntofu »

InTheArena wrote: post #202
southerntofu wrote: post #141

So what's a good alternative to Ubiquiti hardware? Is there some guides/community for standard x86_64/arm64 computers and PCIe cards to be used as professional-grade routers and wifi access point at a low price range? Turris Omnia looks pretty cool but it's really too expensive for non-profits. Is OpenWRT or OPNSense the way to go? Or is there some more generic web dashboard you can run on any GNU/Linux or BSD system…

None of these. It may surprise some, but there is not prosumer/enterprise vendor that provides that Ubiquti does in terms of a solid experience, with bugs (as all software does), across routers, switches and network, with a single pane of glass. Don't use ubiquiti is you want OPNsense capabilities. For almost everything else, it's a great bet. The new UDR that is about to come out is a very worthy successor to the Ap…

So you're recommending OPNSense?

Re: Former Ubiquiti employee charged with stealing data and extorting company

#236

Post by 542354234235 »

trhway wrote: post #213
542354234235 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a series of unfalsifiable claims. Taking evidence linking him to the crime and saying “That is what someone who's setting up a patsy would do” pretty much means anything and everything becomes “proof” of the conspiracy.

> evidence linking him to the crime keyword is "evidence". Whenever a sympathetic person/cause becomes a target of IP-address based evidence HN is overflowing with posts that IP-address isn't an evidence :)

It wasn’t IP-address based evidence. It was a chain of evidence. His Paypal account being used to purchase a VPN. That same VPN being used to access the servers with close-hold, high level credentials. His home IP being associated with the VPN after a power outage at his house.

So, we have electric grid evidence that matches up with IP evidence, that matches up with Paypal account evidence. I’m not saying he is guilty or innocent, but lets not misrepresent what is being discussed. I’m saying that responding to chains of evidence by claiming that is what someone setting up a patsy would do, is a unfalsifiable conspiracy theory.

Re: Former Ubiquiti employee charged with stealing data and extorting company

#237

Post by mavhc »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #159
mavhc wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawyer suggests you always hire a lawyer? Not at all suspicious

It isn't suspicious. It has almost no downside other than standing up to a few hours of them harassing you and telling you they'll go a lot easier on you if...

So lawyers are free? Excellent

Re: Former Ubiquiti employee charged with stealing data and extorting company

#238

Post by sneak »

novok wrote: post #231
sneak wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right: Having watched the "don't talk to the police" video over a half dozen times, I unwillingly volunteered information to a cop when in the moment. It's really hard to put into practice when someone domineering and armed is implicitly threatening you with arrest/violence for not doing precisely what they want you to do. I actually rehearse now, because police in the USA are so corrupt and unreliable. Somet…

How about the border when entering a country? What should you do in that case?

Oh, I have a long history of telling the border guards in the USA (where they have to let me in by law) "none of your business" when re-entering.

I have also semi-successfully appealed their FOIA denials covering the incident.

It has resulted in the sexual assault of some of my traveling companions by US CBP (full and thorough body search, simply as punishment for remaining silent). CBP is lousy with criminal pigs.

You can't refuse to answer questions when entering most countries you aren't a citizen of, if you wish to be permitted entry.

Re: Former Ubiquiti employee charged with stealing data and extorting company

#239

Post by gonzo »

mavhc wrote: post #237
stjohnswarts wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't suspicious. It has almost no downside other than standing up to a few hours of them harassing you and telling you they'll go a lot easier on you if...

So lawyers are free? Excellent

In the US the state have to provide you a lawyer if you can’t afford one (only after you’re arrested though).

See Miranda v. Arizona 1966 and the Fifth Amendment.

Re: Former Ubiquiti employee charged with stealing data and extorting company

#240

Post by hollerith »

gonzo wrote: post #239
mavhc wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So lawyers are free? Excellent

In the US the state have to provide you a lawyer if you can’t afford one (only after you’re arrested though). See Miranda v. Arizona 1966 and the Fifth Amendment.

And a judge determines whether you can afford a lawyer.
Post reply on HN