
Regarding Marcus Hutchins aka MalwareTech - okket
https://doublepulsar.com/regarding-marcus-hutchins-aka-malwaretech-650c99e96594
======
thieving_magpie
Still waiting for actual details related to the charges to come out before
rushing forward with my opinion on the matter.

~~~
icpmacdo
We can still point you the bullshit things the US is doing like trying to say
he was breaking felony gun laws going to the shooting ranges on the strip and
using that as a reason to stop his bail

[https://twitter.com/ChristyNews3LV/status/893603855266492416](https://twitter.com/ChristyNews3LV/status/893603855266492416)

~~~
tptacek
Not only did he get bail, but his bail was cheap. Don't get all your news from
Twitter.

~~~
tedunangst
But how else would we know who the prosecutor voted for in the last election?

------
barking
From afar, America always seems to adopt the sledgehammer to crack a nut
approach.

~~~
madez
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.

~~~
ad_hominem
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

~~~
reitanqild
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. : )

~~~
kwhitefoot
Treating him as a common criminal was the key decision.

Why do people outside Norway keep bringing it up anyway. They weren't there,
they don't have friends or relatives who were there. Yet while almost everyone
who lives in Norway either knows someone who was on Utøya or has a close
relative who knows someone who was there we mostly get on with our lives and
ignore him.

~~~
madez
This reminds of how people react when someone says hes vegan. Quite a few
people react negatively to it, even when there was no evangelism occurring but
just plain stating. It seems to be insecurity.

~~~
ad_hominem
A ridiculous comparison apropos of nothing.

------
afarrell
It seems to me that the broader issue is one where HN readers individually
writing their senators would have an impact for the time invested.

1) Legislators do not have the time to come to this situation with insight
into how the cybersecurity community works. There are simply too many fields
of human endeavour and people have to specialize to get things done.

2) This is not an issue like Abortion or the 2nd amendment. Senators can and
do change their minds based on input from experts. See Sen. Lindsey Graham's
approach to encryption[1]

3) Harm to the US ability to collaborate with its allies is a thing that
senators will care about, especially hawks. Right now, they likely have two
threats top-of-mind: ISIS and the Iran-Russia-Assad alliance.

~~~
ubernostrum
What exactly do you want members of the US Congress to do? Pass a bill
declaring him innocent?

The quick change in tone in the post is telling, by the way -- it goes from
being skeptical that he was involved in a crime at all, to quibbling that not
much money was stolen anyway, and if you're going to prosecute over such a
tiny thing you should do it in a different country than the one where it was
stolen.

~~~
snarfy
Even if that country was North Korea and the crime was punishable by
execution? 40 years in prison is extreme for $2000. They might as well execute
him. And yes, I compared the US to North Korea, but when it comes to cyber
security laws they really aren't that much different. The punishments are way
out of proportion to the crimes. You'd be better of killing someone than
hacking them.

~~~
awinder
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 the world to draw government ire.

~~~
syshum
>>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 be a jury of his peers, unless simply being of the same species
is all you consider to be a "peer"

>>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).

The max sentence will be used to extort a guilty plea, happen every day to
innocent people

Parole is still considered in service to your sentence, you have massively
diminished rights and you are not considered a "free person" while on parole,
you simply are serving your time outside the confines of a cage. Given this is
a non-US citizen that complicates parole as he would unlikely be allowed to
leave the US while on Parole.

On this being a nonviolent crime, nonviolent crimes in the US Legal system are
often punish more harshly then violent crimes, Many nonviolent crimes have
mandatory minimums, where as almost no violent crimes do. Saying this is a
nonviolent crime so it will be "easy" or the punishment will be lessened is
factually incorrect when talking about the American Legal system

~~~
dogma1138
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.

~~~
syshum
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 place Ultra Religious people will
likely be involved.

Further while I do not believe the jury should be made up solely of computer
experts, I also do not believe computer experts should be excluded simply
because they are experts in the subject matter of the trial which is what
happens.

My biggest problem is around the process of jury selection.

~~~
sanderjd
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?

~~~
kwhitefoot
The limited number should be much smaller for one thing. In fact I don't see
why they should get to object to a jury member at all. If a juror is unfit it
should be up to an impartial organ to determine that not the opposing sides in
the fight.

~~~
dogma1138
And what that impartial organization would look like? The Jury selection
process is more important for the defense than for the prosecution.

------
notwhiteknight
_The case seems to stem from the takedown of a website called AlphaBay, where
a large amount of new cases are now entering the US justice system._

Can someone explain what this means? Is there a news article somewhere
explaining the flood of cases created by AlphaBay? Why haven't I heard of
other's being prosecuted?

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
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.

~~~
dogma1138
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.

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

------
cosarara97
40 years in prison is way out of proportion, guilty or not. Are there black
hats in the US currently serving this kind of sentences?

~~~
Shivetya
Aaron Swartz all over again.

~~~
azm1
Oh my, please no...

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

~~~
evgen
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
so that you can become a cause celebre to the conference you are about to
attend. Neither are they under any obligation to tell you ahead of time that
they plan to arrest you.

While the accused has rights, the friends, family, and casual acquaintances of
the accused have none. Law enforcement must give Marcus' lawyer access to him,
but need not tell random strangers where he is being detained. In the first
day or so it is not at all uncommon for someone who has been arrested to be
moved from the initial arrest point to a location in the jurisdiction of the
indictment or from a local/county holding facility to a federal facility. What
Marcus needs to do is shut his mouth, repeat "I am invoking my right to remain
silent and wish to speak to my attorney", and NOT SAY ANYTHING.

Oh, he didn't get to communicate immediately with his co-defendant and make
sure they have their stories straight? Yeah, major violation of his rights
there...

I am not sure what fantasy-land the author of the original post lives in, but
even someone with only a passing familiarity with the US legal system would
know some of this. Yes, he will get to speak to his attorney and such access
by his counsel must be allowed, but there are strict limits on how long he can
be denied such access and he should expect the feds to go right up to that
limit but not beyond. As someone who apparently has an appreciation for the
grey areas in law and society, I am sure we will hear from Marcus how much he
appreciates law enforcement taking advantage of the differences between MUST
and SHOULD in the societal protocol docs that we call laws and legal
precedent.

~~~
uiri
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 the detention) without either of those things?

~~~
zerapod
There's a difference between being "denied access" to a lawyer, and a fool not
requesting one.

------
marcoperaza
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 and accusing law enforcement of malfeasance, without any evidence
whatsoever.

[1] For example, the unqualified rights to remain silent and to a jury trial
in which illegally gathered evidence is excluded, neither of which he would
have in the UK.

~~~
dexterdog
If anybody watched what they did to Russ Ulbrecht they have a reason to be
skeptical. The funny part is that they clearly didn't get the concept of the
Dread Pirate Roberts.

~~~
marcoperaza
> _If anybody watched what they did to Russ Ulbrecht they have a reason to be
> skeptical_

You mean the guy who ran a massive illegal drug marketplace, and who tried to
have people killed to protect it?

~~~
dexterdog
Allegedly.

------
josh2600
.

~~~
zitterbewegung
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.

~~~
eatitraw
> 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.

------
throwme_1980
Please let the law inforcement agencies deal with this. Have faith in the
system

~~~
tehwebguy
Tell that to Davino Watson, US citizen, held by ICE (immigration "police") for
3 years by mistake, gets literally zero compensation:

[http://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/540903038/u-s-citizen-held-
by-...](http://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/540903038/u-s-citizen-held-by-
immigration-for-3-years-denied-compensation-by-appeals-court)

------
0x0
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](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643467)

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

~~~
jacquesm
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 something
and selling it rather than using it is the bar to clear.

Especially since so much software is 'dual use'.

~~~
masklinn
> 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).

------
calafrax
These "white hat" people are really amusing. They sell weapons to criminals
and then sell the defense to the victims and then act all indignant when they
get arrested.

------
rurban
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...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4762608/Marcus-Hutchins-
admits-malware-code-Las-Vegas.html)

* 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 there.

* Admitted in a police interview that he created the code of a malware that harvests bank details, a prosecutor said in a Las Vegas court.

~~~
sasas
According to Andrew Mabbitt -

"He stayed in our villa for free. He didn't pay for the car. He didn't pay for
a helicopter ride. He didn't pay for concert tickets..." [1]

He takes home a 6 figure salary [2]

[1]
[https://twitter.com/mabbssec/status/893617953530273792](https://twitter.com/mabbssec/status/893617953530273792)

[2]
[https://twitter.com/mabbssec/status/893624617142759425](https://twitter.com/mabbssec/status/893624617142759425)

