
Idaho court confiscates software developer’s computer because he ‘likes hacking’ - cmulligan
http://www.sdtimes.com/content/article.aspx?ArticleID=65257&page=1
======
pessimizer
Idaho court confiscates software developer’s computer because _it contained
copy of source code involved in property dispute._

I probably hope he wins and gets it back, but there's nothing to see here.

~~~
meepmorp
Yeah. There's a minor problem with the court misunderstanding the sense in
which the guy's website uses the term hacker, but it's really tangential to
the case itself.

------
jdubs
Seems like the person had the content on their computer and would have
eventually confiscated the computer for evidence reasons.... Seems like a
sensational title to me.

------
saraid216
More information about this can be found here:

[https://plus.google.com/u/0/112482032780181267192/posts/XBhg...](https://plus.google.com/u/0/112482032780181267192/posts/XBhgQ72UP83)

and here:

[https://plus.google.com/u/0/112482032780181267192/posts/YeoU...](https://plus.google.com/u/0/112482032780181267192/posts/YeoUsMzQw17)

------
vellum
Previous discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6595993](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6595993)

------
balabaster
That title definitely seems sensationalist. Because that would apply to every
software developer... ever. That's the nature of what gets developers involved
in projects. So that might as well say "get caught developing software in
Idaho and we'll take away your computer." Probably best to go back to growing
potatoes then...

------
pavel_lishin
If by calling themselves "hackers" they're announcing their intent to release
the code publicly, how does it follow that they also intend to conceal their
role? You can't have it both ways, right?

~~~
Jtsummers
Sure you can. The court has deemed the risk to be: he can release the code,
and he can use channels or means that obfuscate that _he_ released the code.
If he announced it, and it were deemed criminal (theft or whatever) charges or
civil suits would be more easily brought against him. If he wants to avoid
that risk, but still release it, he (by the court's judgement) has that
capability.

------
aclevernickname
how about a headline that tells the truth about the situation: Court grants
Prosecution's request to confiscate computers due to pro-hacking statement on
corporate website.

funniest thing not discussed: as this is a civil case, they needed the
respondant's agreement to seize the computer. So the Prosecution was able to
get agreement of the parties, then the Judge ruled accordingly.

