4 ms·

>the cops couldn't tell the difference is there any indication that's the case here? the FBI isn't a bunch of complete incompetents. He could be found innoce

>the cops couldn't tell the difference is there any indication that's the case here? the FBI isn't a bunch of complete incompetents. He could be found innocent, but what makes this case different than the presumption of innocence that every person charged with a crime is supposed to be given?

mattnewton 9y ago
There is evidence that he was a white hat hacker now, and that is enough for current white hat hackers to be worried.
- tptacek 9y ago
  I don't know what these terms even mean. "White hat hacker"? Is that what we call "everyone who does anything in infosec but doesn't sell stolen financial information obtained from botnets"? The attempt to divide the whole world into "people irrationally attacking 'hackers' and 'the good kind of hackers'" isn't doing anyone any favors. If Hutchins has nothing to do with a criminal conspiracy to profit from a truly awful banking trojan, then his arrest and indictment is a travesty. But if he does have something to do with it, then his status as any kind of "hacker" should have nothing to do with anybody's take on the situation. I'm not sure how much lower you can go than deliberately making money by stealing bank logins from ordinary people, which is what he's accused of doing. People love to talk about how the FBI has a history of framing people --- and in other fields they might. But there is no track record I'm aware of for the FBI to make up a story like this out of whole cloth. In every case like it, from NanoCore to Albert Gonzales and Stephen Watt, there's been a basis for the charges.
  - natch 9y ago
    Wen-Ho Lee. Evidence showed that the leaked/stolen documents could only have come from a downstream contractor, not from Lee's lab. And yet the FBI latched on to him and wouldn't let go. Everything you think you know about the case is likely built on flawed reporting fueled by deliberate government leaks. Don't get me started... just know that what you think you know about that case is probably wrong. I was at most of his hearings and watched the judge apologize to him for the DOJ's behavior. But as you say maybe that's another field. But still skepticism is not without basis imho.
  - syshum 9y ago
    >People love to talk about how the FBI has a history of framing people --- and in other fields they might. But there is no track record I'm aware of for the FBI to make up a story like this out of whole cloth. No? It is fairly common in Terrorism cases. I fail to see why they could not do it for Cyber Crime as well https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/05193620404/fbi-continues-to-foil-its-own-devised-terrorist-plots.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/05193620404/fbi-c... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/us/fbi-isis-terrorism-stings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/us/fbi-isis-terrorism-sti... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150316/17433230331/fbi-pins-terrorist-nametag-retarded-fool-without-pot-to-piss.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150316/17433230331/fbi-p... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140722/14463127971/report-all-four-high-profile-domestic-terrorism-plots-last-decade-were-crafted-ground-up-fbi.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140722/14463127971/repor... Want more?
    - rainsford 9y ago
      > Want more? Well, yes, since none of those are actually examples of the FBI framing anyone. Stings are not the same thing as framing, no matter how much sarcasm techdirt uses to describe them. A sting is law enforcement creating a situation where someone can demonstrate clear evidence of their intent to break the law. Framing is law enforcement MANUFACTURING evidence that someone broke or intended to break the law. In the terrorism cases, a sting would be the FBI giving someone a fake bomb and that person trying to blow people up. Framing would be the FBI arresting someone and falsely claiming they found a bomb and plans for the local stadium in the persons's house. It's an important distinction. In the former case, the person clearly tried to kill people while in the latter case they did not.
      - syshum 9y ago
        >In the terrorism cases, a sting would be the FBI giving someone a fake bomb No that should be entrapment A Sting is where they get a tip that criminal action might be happening and they are there to catch the criminals in the act Not where the FBI creates the plan, induces people into the plan, provides support for the plan, provide materials for the plan, then arrests everyone. That is or should be considered entrapment, which I also consider framing someone
- ptaipale 9y ago
  That's a bit like saying there is evidence he is a white male, and that is enough for all white males to be worried. I.e. not relevant.
pdkl95 9y ago
> The FBI isn't a bunch of complete incompetents. The FBI is human and therefor make mistakes, and they are a large organization and therefor have an structural inertia that occasionally directs a lot of power and effort at the wrong target. Also, the price of democracy is eternal vigilance. Citizens have a duty to check the government's use of power. We should be worrying every time the government acts against a citizen until we also see proper due process including any necessary evidence. > He could be found innocent He is innocent until proven otherwise. > what makes this case different The government hasn't yet shown that they can handle this kind of case properly. That is partly due to the novel nature of situations involving new technology, but it is also from the government's own history of bad behavior. Their reputation means they do not get the benefit of the doubt, and until we see actual evidence that this case (regardless of the outcome) is being handled properly, it's prudent to worry that this might be an overreaching prosecutor (or worse).
RaleyField 9y ago
> the FBI isn't a bunch of complete incompetents It isn't a bunch of complete competents either, forensic hair analysis kerfuffle shows that much.

mattnewton 9y ago

There is evidence that he was a white hat hacker now, and that is enough for current white hat hackers to be worried.

tptacek 9y ago
I don't know what these terms even mean. "White hat hacker"? Is that what we call "everyone who does anything in infosec but doesn't sell stolen financial information obtained from botnets"? The attempt to divide the whole world into "people irrationally attacking 'hackers' and 'the good kind of hackers'" isn't doing anyone any favors. If Hutchins has nothing to do with a criminal conspiracy to profit from a truly awful banking trojan, then his arrest and indictment is a travesty. But if he does have something to do with it, then his status as any kind of "hacker" should have nothing to do with anybody's take on the situation. I'm not sure how much lower you can go than deliberately making money by stealing bank logins from ordinary people, which is what he's accused of doing. People love to talk about how the FBI has a history of framing people --- and in other fields they might. But there is no track record I'm aware of for the FBI to make up a story like this out of whole cloth. In every case like it, from NanoCore to Albert Gonzales and Stephen Watt, there's been a basis for the charges.
- natch 9y ago
  Wen-Ho Lee. Evidence showed that the leaked/stolen documents could only have come from a downstream contractor, not from Lee's lab. And yet the FBI latched on to him and wouldn't let go. Everything you think you know about the case is likely built on flawed reporting fueled by deliberate government leaks. Don't get me started... just know that what you think you know about that case is probably wrong. I was at most of his hearings and watched the judge apologize to him for the DOJ's behavior. But as you say maybe that's another field. But still skepticism is not without basis imho.
- syshum 9y ago
  >People love to talk about how the FBI has a history of framing people --- and in other fields they might. But there is no track record I'm aware of for the FBI to make up a story like this out of whole cloth. No? It is fairly common in Terrorism cases. I fail to see why they could not do it for Cyber Crime as well https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/05193620404/fbi-continues-to-foil-its-own-devised-terrorist-plots.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/05193620404/fbi-c... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/us/fbi-isis-terrorism-stings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/us/fbi-isis-terrorism-sti... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150316/17433230331/fbi-pins-terrorist-nametag-retarded-fool-without-pot-to-piss.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150316/17433230331/fbi-p... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140722/14463127971/report-all-four-high-profile-domestic-terrorism-plots-last-decade-were-crafted-ground-up-fbi.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140722/14463127971/repor... Want more?
  - rainsford 9y ago
    > Want more? Well, yes, since none of those are actually examples of the FBI framing anyone. Stings are not the same thing as framing, no matter how much sarcasm techdirt uses to describe them. A sting is law enforcement creating a situation where someone can demonstrate clear evidence of their intent to break the law. Framing is law enforcement MANUFACTURING evidence that someone broke or intended to break the law. In the terrorism cases, a sting would be the FBI giving someone a fake bomb and that person trying to blow people up. Framing would be the FBI arresting someone and falsely claiming they found a bomb and plans for the local stadium in the persons's house. It's an important distinction. In the former case, the person clearly tried to kill people while in the latter case they did not.
    - syshum 9y ago
      >In the terrorism cases, a sting would be the FBI giving someone a fake bomb No that should be entrapment A Sting is where they get a tip that criminal action might be happening and they are there to catch the criminals in the act Not where the FBI creates the plan, induces people into the plan, provides support for the plan, provide materials for the plan, then arrests everyone. That is or should be considered entrapment, which I also consider framing someone
ptaipale 9y ago
That's a bit like saying there is evidence he is a white male, and that is enough for all white males to be worried. I.e. not relevant.

pdkl95 9y ago

> The FBI isn't a bunch of complete incompetents. The FBI is human and therefor make mistakes, and they are a large organization and therefor have an structural inertia that occasionally directs a lot of power and effort at the wrong target. Also, the price of democracy is eternal vigilance. Citizens have a duty to check the government's use of power. We should be worrying every time the government acts against a citizen until we also see proper due process including any necessary evidence. > He could be found innocent He is innocent until proven otherwise. > what makes this case different The government hasn't yet shown that they can handle this kind of case properly. That is partly due to the novel nature of situations involving new technology, but it is also from the government's own history of bad behavior. Their reputation means they do not get the benefit of the doubt, and until we see actual evidence that this case (regardless of the outcome) is being handled properly, it's prudent to worry that this might be an overreaching prosecutor (or worse).

RaleyField 9y ago

> the FBI isn't a bunch of complete incompetents It isn't a bunch of complete competents either, forensic hair analysis kerfuffle shows that much.