4 ms·
Then shouldn't Hutchins legally be an accessory to uses of the malware to steal money, surveil unsuspecting victims, etc. if it is true that he knowingly sold i
by meowface 9y ago
Then shouldn't Hutchins legally be an accessory to uses of the malware to steal money, surveil unsuspecting victims, etc. if it is true that he knowingly sold it to people who do such things?
- comicjk 9y agoHe might be able to get out of it by arguing that he didn't know about any particular crime they would commit, or that he thought they had good faith reasons to buy the software despite being criminals in general. I think this hinges on exactly what he knew.
- meowface 9y agoYes, absolutely. The burden is on the government to prove he knew who he was selling it to and that he knew what they were very likely going to use it for.