SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The visitors were from the FBI, and after a 90-minute search of his house, they left with his computers, only to return two months later with handcuffs. Now free on bond, Huddleston, 26, is scheduled to appear in a federal courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia on Friday for arraignment on federal charges of conspiracy and aiding and abetting computer intrusions.
Huddleston, though, isn’t a hacker. He’s the author of a remote administration tool, or RAT, called NanoCore that happens to be popular with hackers. NanoCore has been linked to intrusions in at least 10 countries, including an attack on Middle Eastern energy firms in 2015, and a massive phishing campaign last August in which the perpetrators posed as major oil and gas company. As Huddleston sees it, he’s a victim himself—hackers have been pirating his program for years and using it to commit crimes. But to the Justice Department, Huddleston is an accomplice to a spree of felonies.
Depending on whose view prevails, Huddleston could face prison time and lose his home, in a case that raises a novel question: when is a programmer criminally responsible for the actions of his users? “Everybody seems to acknowledge that this software product had a legitimate purpose,” says Travis Morrissey, a lawyer in Hot Springs who represented Huddleston at his bail hearing. “It’s like saying that if someone buys a handgun and uses it to rob a liquor store, that the handgun manufacturer is complicit.”
A conviction will set a sweeping legal precedent whereby car manufacturers can be sued if a car is used to kill, or a paper manufacturer can be sued if a scrap of paper is used to pass a ransom note.
.
.
.
Profit!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @10:50PM (4 children)
Wow, you sounds pretty biased.
Accusing the author of deliberately misrepresenting the facts just for clicks.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 31 2017, @10:58PM (3 children)
Accusing the author of deliberately misrepresenting the facts just for clicks.
I did nothing of the sort. I criticized the writing and offered a plausible alternate explanation for the (likely accurate) facts as stated.
It is possible for people to arrive at differfent opinions based on the same set of facts.
Of course, that requires acknowledging the existence of an objective fact-based reality, first.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @11:32PM (1 child)
> I did nothing of the sort. I criticized the writing and offered a plausible alternate explanation for the (likely accurate) facts as stated.
Oh please, don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining.
You wrote:
"Sure they do! That way they can spend 50% of the article describing a tawdry arrest and a lone-hacker vs the Man story (hence 'clickbaitey')"
Unless you are an aspie who is so literal they don't even recognize when their words take the form of sarcasm, you sure as shit made that exact accusation.
FYI, headlines are clickbait, articles are not.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 03 2017, @03:08PM
You say "deliberately misrepresent", DM says "bend to fit." Potaytoe, potahtoe.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday April 01 2017, @04:03AM
Plausible alternate explanation? Sorry, that's a poor second to the what sounds like the most plausible. Given our corporatocracy's long history of fearing and overreacting to technology and those most savvy with it, this case is most likely another of those. Pretty Good Privacy and export controls on encryption, Steve Jackson Games, Dmitry Sklyarov, Aaron Swartz, etc, etc.