4 ms·

Totally agree. It's a freedom of speech issue. Just like you can't hold the Beatles responsible for the Manson murders, you can't hold someone expressing them

by dhimes 10y ago

Totally agree. It's a freedom of speech issue. Just like you can't hold the Beatles responsible for the Manson murders, you can't hold someone expressing themselves in code responsible for malicious use. See: NRA lobby white papers.

smrtinsert 10y ago
Absolutely agree. I hope he has attempted to contact the EFF over this for counsel. As I understand it, what under similar policies, they could arrest a mapping product programmer for some nefarious third parties who plan terrorist attacks.
- khedoros1 10y ago
  > they could arrest a mapping product programmer for some nefarious third parties who plan terrorist attacks. What if the programmer distributed and supported the product on a terrorism planning site, and worked to ban anyone who mentioned using the mapping product for terrorism? And who knew of a plugin for his software designed to calculate bomb shrapnel distribution? The guy sells his software through a hacking site, provides a plugin API, but states that it shouldn't be used for hacking. The situation seems similar to ROM sites that say "only download if you own the original game", smoking stores that sell bongs "for use with tobacco products only", etc. He'd have a better defense if he sold the software through a forum for Windows enthusiasts, or something.
mtgx 10y ago
Let's hope they don't throw 50 years of prison or plea deal at him, as they tend to do, and that he doesn't take the plea deal. Since software has already been defined as free speech, I think there's a very good chance he should win this.
rhino369 10y ago
It isn't a freedom of speech issue. Free speech doesn't cover using words to commit a crime. Saying "handover the cash or I'll slit your throat" is still robbery. The law handles this fairly well in theory. You are only responsible for aiding a crime if you acted to assist the crime with the required mental state. The required mental state for most crimes is recklessness. So you can sell someone a gun but you can't sell someone a gun if they say "I'm going to murder my wife." Doing something totally legal to assist a crime is a crime if you were acting intentionally to assist the crime. You can be charged for giving the Gettysburg Address if the point was to get people in one place to bomb it. Here the FBI is wrong. As of now, there is no evidence he intended to assist in these crimes. But if you created some software designed to hack a company you hated and then released it widely hoping that someone would use it? That is a crime.
- psyc 10y ago
  The standard for when words are criminal is much more narrow than that in the US. It isn't just words implicated in crimes. Off the top of my head, there are quite narrow interpretations of libel, slander, and incitement to imminent lawless action. Even in cases such as insider trading, it's the acting that makes the crime, not the fact someone said something.
- scott_karana 10y ago
  Robbery is a physical action. The words are not robbery. What if they were uttered in a play? What if you're joking around with your friends? There are valid, legal uses for them. In the absence of criminal actions such as robbery or assault following those words, a court would need to prove criminal intent.
  - rhino369 10y ago
    Words can definitely be the actus reus of a robbery. You also need the mens rea. There are very few actions that are always criminal. Sex with a minor is the only major one. Things like speeding if you count small fines.

by dhimes 10y ago

smrtinsert 10y ago

Absolutely agree. I hope he has attempted to contact the EFF over this for counsel. As I understand it, what under similar policies, they could arrest a mapping product programmer for some nefarious third parties who plan terrorist attacks.

khedoros1 10y ago
> they could arrest a mapping product programmer for some nefarious third parties who plan terrorist attacks. What if the programmer distributed and supported the product on a terrorism planning site, and worked to ban anyone who mentioned using the mapping product for terrorism? And who knew of a plugin for his software designed to calculate bomb shrapnel distribution? The guy sells his software through a hacking site, provides a plugin API, but states that it shouldn't be used for hacking. The situation seems similar to ROM sites that say "only download if you own the original game", smoking stores that sell bongs "for use with tobacco products only", etc. He'd have a better defense if he sold the software through a forum for Windows enthusiasts, or something.

mtgx 10y ago

Let's hope they don't throw 50 years of prison or plea deal at him, as they tend to do, and that he doesn't take the plea deal. Since software has already been defined as free speech, I think there's a very good chance he should win this.

rhino369 10y ago

It isn't a freedom of speech issue. Free speech doesn't cover using words to commit a crime. Saying "handover the cash or I'll slit your throat" is still robbery. The law handles this fairly well in theory. You are only responsible for aiding a crime if you acted to assist the crime with the required mental state. The required mental state for most crimes is recklessness. So you can sell someone a gun but you can't sell someone a gun if they say "I'm going to murder my wife." Doing something totally legal to assist a crime is a crime if you were acting intentionally to assist the crime. You can be charged for giving the Gettysburg Address if the point was to get people in one place to bomb it. Here the FBI is wrong. As of now, there is no evidence he intended to assist in these crimes. But if you created some software designed to hack a company you hated and then released it widely hoping that someone would use it? That is a crime.

psyc 10y ago
The standard for when words are criminal is much more narrow than that in the US. It isn't just words implicated in crimes. Off the top of my head, there are quite narrow interpretations of libel, slander, and incitement to imminent lawless action. Even in cases such as insider trading, it's the acting that makes the crime, not the fact someone said something.
scott_karana 10y ago
Robbery is a physical action. The words are not robbery. What if they were uttered in a play? What if you're joking around with your friends? There are valid, legal uses for them. In the absence of criminal actions such as robbery or assault following those words, a court would need to prove criminal intent.
- rhino369 10y ago
  Words can definitely be the actus reus of a robbery. You also need the mens rea. There are very few actions that are always criminal. Sex with a minor is the only major one. Things like speeding if you count small fines.