3 ms·

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 happ

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.