4 ms·

>>So, let's just put it clearly: suppose someone who is, at the time, not physically present in the US, breaks into a computer system which is physically presen

by syshum 9y ago

>>So, let's just put it clearly: suppose someone who is, at the time, not physically present in the US, breaks into a computer system which is physically present in the US at that time. So your strawman has nothing to do with the topic at hand The US Government in this case is not claiming this person broke into any computer system, they are saying this person developed a tool that was then sold (outside the US) to others that then may have been used by unnamed 3rd parties to break into computers. So to make up a true hypothetical, if a person A in Russia make a small computer program that cracks passwords. Then sells that computer program to person B in Russia, then person B uses that program to break into a US Computer, did person A break US law, and be charged under US Law? I say no, you clearly believe yes.

ubernostrum 9y ago
The indictment seems to think he was a bit more involved than that. What you seem to want him to be is, to spin out an analogy, an innocent shopkeeper who happens to sell sporting goods, and is now saddened to learn that someone bought a cricket bat from him and used it to beat someone up. The indictment is alleging something more like "Anybody here looking to beat someone up? I've got cricket bats that are great for this, and am happy to provide assistance and pointers and work with you as you choose who to beat up and how!" Seriously, read the indictment. If they can prove he either was involved in deploying/using/explaining how to use the malware against specific US victims, or that he knew who the intended victims were and provided the malware for use against them with that knowledge, then he's dead to rights on a US charge.
- syshum 9y ago
  >>Seriously, read the indictment. I have, and to the extent a conspiracy occurred that conspiracy was completely in another nation so to apply this to your analogy if this shop selling cricket bats with a owner that provides pointers to beat people up with it is located outside the US, then the person they provided pointers to travels to the US to beat someone up do you still believe the shop keeper has violated US law? I still do not
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    If the conspiracy was to break into or attack US computer systems, it's a crime the US has jurisdiction over. If it had been a conspiracy to break into or attack French computer systems, France would have jurisdiction over it. If it were a conspiracy to break into or attack Mongolian computer systems, Mongolia would have jurisdiction over it. I don't see anything unusual here.

by syshum 9y ago

ubernostrum 9y ago

The indictment seems to think he was a bit more involved than that. What you seem to want him to be is, to spin out an analogy, an innocent shopkeeper who happens to sell sporting goods, and is now saddened to learn that someone bought a cricket bat from him and used it to beat someone up. The indictment is alleging something more like "Anybody here looking to beat someone up? I've got cricket bats that are great for this, and am happy to provide assistance and pointers and work with you as you choose who to beat up and how!" Seriously, read the indictment. If they can prove he either was involved in deploying/using/explaining how to use the malware against specific US victims, or that he knew who the intended victims were and provided the malware for use against them with that knowledge, then he's dead to rights on a US charge.

syshum 9y ago
>>Seriously, read the indictment. I have, and to the extent a conspiracy occurred that conspiracy was completely in another nation so to apply this to your analogy if this shop selling cricket bats with a owner that provides pointers to beat people up with it is located outside the US, then the person they provided pointers to travels to the US to beat someone up do you still believe the shop keeper has violated US law? I still do not
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  If the conspiracy was to break into or attack US computer systems, it's a crime the US has jurisdiction over. If it had been a conspiracy to break into or attack French computer systems, France would have jurisdiction over it. If it were a conspiracy to break into or attack Mongolian computer systems, Mongolia would have jurisdiction over it. I don't see anything unusual here.