Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Friday February 15 2019, @06:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the hangover-haranguing dept.

British cyber-security expert Marcus Hutchins - who has been accused of writing virus code - has lost a legal bid to suppress some evidence prosecutors want to use against him.

The evidence is comments he made in an interview after the FBI arrested him.

He wanted the testimony discounted, claiming he gave it when "intoxicated".

A court ruling issued earlier this week threw out the request saying there was no evidence that he was under the influence of drugs.

FBI agents arrested Mr Hutchins on 2 August 2017 at Las Vegas's McCarran International Airport as he was starting his journey home after attending the Def Con hacker conference. He has been held in the US ever since his arrest.

He faces 10 charges related to malware, or malicious software, including a program called Kronos which is designed to steal banking credentials.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Friday February 15 2019, @07:25PM (1 child)

    by Freeman (732) on Friday February 15 2019, @07:25PM (#801729) Journal

    I was more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but from the sounds of it he's probably guilty. I'm somewhat conflicted on how the evidence was gathered. Though, from the sounds of it, the agents seemed to have done what was required of them by law with regards to notifying him of his rights. From the sounds of it, at best, this guy had cleaned up his act and wasn't actively making malicious software/malware/etc. While not committing further crimes is commendable. That doesn't negate any responsibility with regards to recent criminal activity. Some crimes in the USA don't even have a statute of limitations, though, I'd hope that's reserved for only the most serious of crimes.

    --
    Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by darkfeline on Friday February 15 2019, @10:16PM

      by darkfeline (1030) on Friday February 15 2019, @10:16PM (#801789) Homepage

      It's a dangerous precedent. What if the police intentionally get you drunk/drugged and coerce you into giving a confession? "But there was no evidence that he was under the influence of drugs, your honor!"

      Testimony while under any influence, chemical or physical, should be thrown out.

      --
      Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @08:12PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @08:12PM (#801755)

    It is in like every movie not to talk to police, especially the FBI. Even if you did nothing wrong you might say something happened late last march but it turned out to be April 2nd or whatever. Now you have lied to the FBI and can go to jail. It is better to say nothing at all without a lawyer checking the records.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday February 15 2019, @08:19PM

      by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Friday February 15 2019, @08:19PM (#801759) Journal

      The authorities are trained to use a variety of tactics to get people to talk. Most ordinary people are untrained. And the propaganda movies and police serials [google.com] depict plenty of characters spilling their guts for one reason or another.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Friday February 15 2019, @08:40PM

      by zocalo (302) on Friday February 15 2019, @08:40PM (#801768)
      He's British, and it's a slightly different phrasing of your rights between the US and UK if you are detained. Miranda's "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can [and probably will] be used against you in court." is pretty clearly saying STFU until you have got a lawyer. The UK's version is "You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court.", which implies you should try and explain yourself and not get evasive rather than STFU and ask for a lawyer before you'll happily answer any questions if you suspect you're in genuine trouble.

      Hutchin's rejected defence was that his intoxicated state led him to initially confuse the two (we get enough US legal procedurals over here most people are probably at least vaguely aware of US process), during which time he managed to incriminate himself and, as such, what he said shouldn't be admissable as he wasn't of clear mind.
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @08:38PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @08:38PM (#801767)

    Get fondled by TSA goons and end up in prison. Win win!

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Friday February 15 2019, @10:52PM (1 child)

    by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 15 2019, @10:52PM (#801803) Journal

    I looked through Kreb's writeup [krebsonsecurity.com] which explores a whole chain of (opsec-is-hard) shady possible aliases, however these were in time frames from 2009 to 2011

    Hutchins would have turned 18 in 2014. Which is coincidentally when the government alleges he sold the Kronos banking Trojan. Krebs indicates he could find no supporting information for that.

    Ironically he would have toiled away as a legitimate security researcher forever, his alleged past misdeeds forgotten, if he hadn't saved the world from Wannacry.

    --
    В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by bradley13 on Saturday February 16 2019, @08:00AM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Saturday February 16 2019, @08:00AM (#801975) Homepage Journal

    The primary evidence against him appears to be whatever he said to the FBI, either at this interview, or at another interview after initially being arrested. This yet again shows that you should never, ever talk to the FBI. They are not there to "help you clear up a few things", they are there to build a case. Anything you say can and will be used against you - taken out of context as needed.

    Worse, in the case of the FBI (or other US federal agencies): they will try to catch you in an error - an innocent misstatement or flaw in your memory will do nicely - and charge you with "lying to a federal officer". Which means that you can never correct a misstatement or error, without opening yourself to this new charge.

    Of course, Hutchins is a UK citizen, so he may have well have been unaware of this...

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(1)