5 ms·

But he wasn't arrested for any normal thing a security researcher would do - he's arrested for creating and selling malware... big difference. The FBI could be

by watty 9y ago

But he wasn't arrested for any normal thing a security researcher would do - he's arrested for creating and selling malware... big difference. The FBI could be wrong and that'd suck. I'm just assuming that the FBI and their resources have enough evidence to reasonably believe he's the creator. And again, your last comment doesn't fit this article. They aren't overextending and arresting a security researcher (although he is one), they're arresting someone whom they believe is a malware creator and distributor.

syshum 9y ago
The FBI claims he created malware, an unnamed co-conspirator is charged with selling it So you generally believe people are guilty until proven innocent, and I always believe people are innocent until they are proven guilty. I never take the government word for anything, and generally assume the government is lying at all times. History supports my position. I find it extremely alarming how quickly people just believe the FBI's assertions as fact with almost no actual evidence being presented
- watty 9y ago
  Correct, I don't think the FBI is making up evidence about Marcus and they actually believe he's the creator of Kronos. Sounds crazy, I know.
  - syshum 9y ago
    >> Sounds crazy, I know. At least you admit that believing the FBI is crazy, maybe there is hope for you.
- comex 9y ago
  > So you generally believe people are guilty until proven innocent, and I always believe people are innocent until they are proven guilty. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a legal standard applied where “guilty” means having one’s liberty taken away. And in that context it’s a perfectly appropriate standard. But as mere spectators, where the harm caused by mistakenly believing he’s guilty is minimal, I think we should feel free to simply believe in the most likely possibility (aka preponderance of the evidence). You may disagree on that point, and that’s your right. However, if we agree to apply that standard, I don’t think it’s reasonable to believe that the FBI’s allegations being false is actually more likely than the alternative. > I never take the government word for anything, and generally assume the government is lying at all times. History supports my position. [citation needed]
  - eecc 9y ago
    So you're basically saying that if the police took him there must be a good reason for that to happen therefore guilty as charged. You have a peculiar interpretation of justice, one that makes you pretty much like those that liked to burn people on fire pyres on the basis of allegations made by socially relevant people.
    - comex 9y ago
      Being burned at stake would count as "having one's liberty taken away", and is therefore a case where, as I said, "innocent until proven guilty" is the appropriate standard. Why is it the appropriate standard? Because as a society, we believe that taking away an innocent person's liberty is far worse than letting a guilty person go free. For the expected value (in the statistical sense) of the legal system's benefit to society to be positive, the prevalence of the former should be a tiny fraction of the prevalence of the latter. (How tiny that fraction actually is, in the US or anywhere else, is debatable - you could look at the number of convicts who were proved innocent upon the advent of DNA testing - but that's not the point.) Thus we should only convict if the apparent probability of guilt is extremely high. But if I as a bystander believe an innocent person is guilty, it's not as big a deal. True, if a lot of people believe that, it causes some reputational damage, which can be bad. If someone with a connection to the person makes decisions disfavorable to them based on that belief, that's quite bad. But this risk is mitigated by the fact that soon enough the police will be required to present their evidence in court, which should help drive our assessments with more certainty to one possibility or the other. And in any case, these harms are far lesser than the harm of subjecting the person to prison, or worse punishments. Perhaps I misstated the ideal standard for bystanders. Perhaps it should not be literally whichever possibility is more likely; perhaps we should give people some "benefit of the doubt", due to the above harms. But there's no need for the extreme standard demanded by the actual justice system. A reasonably high probability of guilt is enough, at least to treat guilt as a working hypothesis. In a legal system such as the United States', "if the police took him" (specifically, indicted him), I'd say there's a high probability - at least 75% or so, probably higher - that there's a "good reason for that to happen". (At least in the sense of "he did what they say he did"; whether that thing ought to be illegal or not is typically more subjective.) It's not certain; there could be some sort of corruption or unethical behavior by the police, or they could simply be mistaken. But it's enough to form a working hypothesis, to use until we gain more information.
- vkou 9y ago
  > So you generally believe people are guilty until proven innocent, and I always believe people are innocent until they are proven guilty. Is indicting people for crimes they are alleged to have committed consistent with your position? Because that's all that's happened so far. The FBI asserts that he created malware. He denies it. An indictment and a trial will figure out which of them is lying.
  - mjw1007 9y ago
    That's one thing that might happen. Another is that he might plead guilty and we'll never know whether he was guilty or innocent (but threatened with consequences he didn't feel he could risk).
    - chronic8k 9y ago
      Which of the two outcomes do you prefer to happen: 1. True malware creator and seller is sent to prison. 2. True malware creator and seller is not sent to prison. Whether he pleads guilty or not has nothing to do with him being a security researcher. I'd much rather have more false positives than false negatives. You, and the rest of Europe, would too.
      - DuskStar 9y ago
        Um. I would much rather have false negatives than false positives in criminal cases, thanks. "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" Also, you've got this wonderful dichotomy laid out, but there are other options too: for instance, that this guy is sent to prison but was not the creator of the malware, thus ending any chance of the true creator ever being caught.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - eecc 9y ago
        Until it's your sorry ass that gets booted to the slammer. Unless of course you're so mediocre that you'll never ever risk doing anything even remotely significant; in which case, whatever.
- abduhl 9y ago
  > I never take the government word for anything, and generally assume the government is lying at all times. History supports my position. Do you habitually eat food that has been left out for longer than government guidelines allow because you generally assume the government is lying at all times? Do you increase your speed when you see a sign that says REDUCE SPEED, SHARP TURNS AHEAD because you generally assume the government is lying at all times?
  - syshum 9y ago
    there is no federal law or guidelines, or requirement for expiration dates on anything but infant formula, and I do not consume or buy infant formula Those are completely Voluntary and used for Stock Control not food safety As to speed limits and sharp turns I drive for the road conditions for the most part, so no I do not always slow down around sharp turns unless there is a posted speed limit for the turn for which I would be subject to arrest or fine for violating.
mintplant 9y ago
The implication is that the FBI may believe him to be the creator of Kronos based on something he did as part of security research, eg. gaining access to a control panel or taking over a CnC server.
- ryanlol 9y ago
  Why is that supposed to be likely?

by watty 9y ago

syshum 9y ago

The FBI claims he created malware, an unnamed co-conspirator is charged with selling it So you generally believe people are guilty until proven innocent, and I always believe people are innocent until they are proven guilty. I never take the government word for anything, and generally assume the government is lying at all times. History supports my position. I find it extremely alarming how quickly people just believe the FBI's assertions as fact with almost no actual evidence being presented

watty 9y ago
Correct, I don't think the FBI is making up evidence about Marcus and they actually believe he's the creator of Kronos. Sounds crazy, I know.
- syshum 9y ago
  >> Sounds crazy, I know. At least you admit that believing the FBI is crazy, maybe there is hope for you.
comex 9y ago
> So you generally believe people are guilty until proven innocent, and I always believe people are innocent until they are proven guilty. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a legal standard applied where “guilty” means having one’s liberty taken away. And in that context it’s a perfectly appropriate standard. But as mere spectators, where the harm caused by mistakenly believing he’s guilty is minimal, I think we should feel free to simply believe in the most likely possibility (aka preponderance of the evidence). You may disagree on that point, and that’s your right. However, if we agree to apply that standard, I don’t think it’s reasonable to believe that the FBI’s allegations being false is actually more likely than the alternative. > I never take the government word for anything, and generally assume the government is lying at all times. History supports my position. [citation needed]
- eecc 9y ago
  So you're basically saying that if the police took him there must be a good reason for that to happen therefore guilty as charged. You have a peculiar interpretation of justice, one that makes you pretty much like those that liked to burn people on fire pyres on the basis of allegations made by socially relevant people.
  - comex 9y ago
    Being burned at stake would count as "having one's liberty taken away", and is therefore a case where, as I said, "innocent until proven guilty" is the appropriate standard. Why is it the appropriate standard? Because as a society, we believe that taking away an innocent person's liberty is far worse than letting a guilty person go free. For the expected value (in the statistical sense) of the legal system's benefit to society to be positive, the prevalence of the former should be a tiny fraction of the prevalence of the latter. (How tiny that fraction actually is, in the US or anywhere else, is debatable - you could look at the number of convicts who were proved innocent upon the advent of DNA testing - but that's not the point.) Thus we should only convict if the apparent probability of guilt is extremely high. But if I as a bystander believe an innocent person is guilty, it's not as big a deal. True, if a lot of people believe that, it causes some reputational damage, which can be bad. If someone with a connection to the person makes decisions disfavorable to them based on that belief, that's quite bad. But this risk is mitigated by the fact that soon enough the police will be required to present their evidence in court, which should help drive our assessments with more certainty to one possibility or the other. And in any case, these harms are far lesser than the harm of subjecting the person to prison, or worse punishments. Perhaps I misstated the ideal standard for bystanders. Perhaps it should not be literally whichever possibility is more likely; perhaps we should give people some "benefit of the doubt", due to the above harms. But there's no need for the extreme standard demanded by the actual justice system. A reasonably high probability of guilt is enough, at least to treat guilt as a working hypothesis. In a legal system such as the United States', "if the police took him" (specifically, indicted him), I'd say there's a high probability - at least 75% or so, probably higher - that there's a "good reason for that to happen". (At least in the sense of "he did what they say he did"; whether that thing ought to be illegal or not is typically more subjective.) It's not certain; there could be some sort of corruption or unethical behavior by the police, or they could simply be mistaken. But it's enough to form a working hypothesis, to use until we gain more information.
vkou 9y ago
> So you generally believe people are guilty until proven innocent, and I always believe people are innocent until they are proven guilty. Is indicting people for crimes they are alleged to have committed consistent with your position? Because that's all that's happened so far. The FBI asserts that he created malware. He denies it. An indictment and a trial will figure out which of them is lying.
- mjw1007 9y ago
  That's one thing that might happen. Another is that he might plead guilty and we'll never know whether he was guilty or innocent (but threatened with consequences he didn't feel he could risk).
  - chronic8k 9y ago
    Which of the two outcomes do you prefer to happen: 1. True malware creator and seller is sent to prison. 2. True malware creator and seller is not sent to prison. Whether he pleads guilty or not has nothing to do with him being a security researcher. I'd much rather have more false positives than false negatives. You, and the rest of Europe, would too.
    - DuskStar 9y ago
      Um. I would much rather have false negatives than false positives in criminal cases, thanks. "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" Also, you've got this wonderful dichotomy laid out, but there are other options too: for instance, that this guy is sent to prison but was not the creator of the malware, thus ending any chance of the true creator ever being caught.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - eecc 9y ago
      Until it's your sorry ass that gets booted to the slammer. Unless of course you're so mediocre that you'll never ever risk doing anything even remotely significant; in which case, whatever.
abduhl 9y ago
> I never take the government word for anything, and generally assume the government is lying at all times. History supports my position. Do you habitually eat food that has been left out for longer than government guidelines allow because you generally assume the government is lying at all times? Do you increase your speed when you see a sign that says REDUCE SPEED, SHARP TURNS AHEAD because you generally assume the government is lying at all times?
- syshum 9y ago
  there is no federal law or guidelines, or requirement for expiration dates on anything but infant formula, and I do not consume or buy infant formula Those are completely Voluntary and used for Stock Control not food safety As to speed limits and sharp turns I drive for the road conditions for the most part, so no I do not always slow down around sharp turns unless there is a posted speed limit for the turn for which I would be subject to arrest or fine for violating.

mintplant 9y ago

The implication is that the FBI may believe him to be the creator of Kronos based on something he did as part of security research, eg. gaining access to a control panel or taking over a CnC server.

ryanlol 9y ago
Why is that supposed to be likely?