3 ms·

>The only judgement which should occur at this point is in the courtroom. But why? Why can't other people judge him for him previously selling other malware si

>The only judgement which should occur at this point is in the courtroom. But why? Why can't other people judge him for him previously selling other malware similar to Kronos under the handles "Gone With The Wind" and "iarkey" on Hackforums? Surely it's not for lack of evidence as anyone with access to google can easily verify this. If he's being framed, we're talking about at least a 7 year long operation to do so: https://i.succ.in/CWcDhXxi.png https://i.succ.in/CWcDhXxi.png

willstrafach 9y ago
The context was: > The only thing you can't reasonably argue is what you've tried to argue here, which is that we should judge this person by what they were previously best known for. I did not try to argue that at all, so I was clarifying my opinion. Nobody will stop you if you choose to judge him based on that allegation, I am choosing to wait on that due to the fact that it will get figured out (with actual evidence either way) in court.
- tptacek 9y ago
  I don't think I wrote this clearly and so I don't blame you for misunderstanding what I'm saying. Judge guilty, judge innocent, don't judge at all: all of those are reasonable options open to you. The only option I am pushing back on is the one that says the only reasonable way to frame somebody is in terms of the good thing they're best known for. Because, of course, it is in the nature of criminal conspiracies to work hard not to be known for them.
nthcolumn 9y ago
@ryanlol aka @weev aka @hitler aka @polpot shouldn't take someone with a -45 reputation's word for anything. favorite pastime of skids is false doxxing. do you have any actual evidence?
- ryanlol 9y ago
  Are you suggesting someone has been actively trying to frame Marcus Hutchins for 7 years? I'm sorry but that sounds a bit too tinfoily for me without any evidence. Not only that, but the key parts of this dox from 2010 have been confirmed by the media and now the FBI. What do you consider actual evidence? This is the kind of stuff they use every day in court, and there's lots of it if you bother to take 10 minutes to look on google. Courts aren't videogames, you don't win by outsmarting the computer. I suppose it's also worth pointing out that the reputation system on that site isn't very useful, when you get banned the staff usually wipes out all of your positive reputation as happened to the poster I screenshotted.
  - nthcolumn 9y ago
    No I am not suggesting that. My subtle joke seems to have fooled you too unless you are... @dang (or maybe you really are @hitler)? The only reason for mentioning someone by name in this kind of forum would be a kind of 'I doxxed you/know where you live' pathetic threat - typical banned skid 'can u mak me a trojan/virus so I can hak mi skul cuz I am dumbasfuck'. What value do you place on the dox? He might have genuinely thought it was Marcus Hutchins but just because he says he is or I say you are @weev doesn't make it true. In any legal system that is not evidence unless they can get the guy who posted it and subpoena him to come and swear preferably with some actual evidence rather than his word. It is hearsay! It is entirely inadmissible! None of it has anything to do with @malwaretech and the guy it meant to be has already themselves posted on twitter and supplied samples of kronos. Google Detectives!
- dang 9y ago
  I think we're pretty sure that ryanlol isn't weev, but personal nastiness will get you banned here, so please don't comment like this again.
  - nthcolumn 9y ago
    Of course he isn't weev or hitler and that is so obvious - wait you did read the forum post didn't you? If not perhaps you should have done that before commenting but giving you the benefit of the doubt and just having some lack of comprehension - I was making the point that anyone can do that but it isn't evidence. There was no personal nastiness and but no 5 stars would definitely comment like that again thank you.
    - dang 9y ago
      If you can't or won't stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN we're going to end up banning you, so please stop.
      - nthcolumn 9y ago
        I don;t mean to sound rude but to my mind and I did mention, it was obvious from my comment that I wasn't saying he was weev or hitler or polpot in fact that was exactly the whole point - 'anybody can say anybody is anybody in post in a place such as this and it doesn't make it true' - do you still not get that? How? And if by 'we' you mean ycombinator and are speaking on behalf of the ycombinator then I would point out that the only truly unsubstantive (sic) comments are the ones you have given succour to which are the libelous allegations against Marcus Hutchins. I would expect ycombinator to be asking members to desist from defaming him.

willstrafach 9y ago

The context was: > The only thing you can't reasonably argue is what you've tried to argue here, which is that we should judge this person by what they were previously best known for. I did not try to argue that at all, so I was clarifying my opinion. Nobody will stop you if you choose to judge him based on that allegation, I am choosing to wait on that due to the fact that it will get figured out (with actual evidence either way) in court.

tptacek 9y ago
I don't think I wrote this clearly and so I don't blame you for misunderstanding what I'm saying. Judge guilty, judge innocent, don't judge at all: all of those are reasonable options open to you. The only option I am pushing back on is the one that says the only reasonable way to frame somebody is in terms of the good thing they're best known for. Because, of course, it is in the nature of criminal conspiracies to work hard not to be known for them.

nthcolumn 9y ago

@ryanlol aka @weev aka @hitler aka @polpot shouldn't take someone with a -45 reputation's word for anything. favorite pastime of skids is false doxxing. do you have any actual evidence?

ryanlol 9y ago
Are you suggesting someone has been actively trying to frame Marcus Hutchins for 7 years? I'm sorry but that sounds a bit too tinfoily for me without any evidence. Not only that, but the key parts of this dox from 2010 have been confirmed by the media and now the FBI. What do you consider actual evidence? This is the kind of stuff they use every day in court, and there's lots of it if you bother to take 10 minutes to look on google. Courts aren't videogames, you don't win by outsmarting the computer. I suppose it's also worth pointing out that the reputation system on that site isn't very useful, when you get banned the staff usually wipes out all of your positive reputation as happened to the poster I screenshotted.
- nthcolumn 9y ago
  No I am not suggesting that. My subtle joke seems to have fooled you too unless you are... @dang (or maybe you really are @hitler)? The only reason for mentioning someone by name in this kind of forum would be a kind of 'I doxxed you/know where you live' pathetic threat - typical banned skid 'can u mak me a trojan/virus so I can hak mi skul cuz I am dumbasfuck'. What value do you place on the dox? He might have genuinely thought it was Marcus Hutchins but just because he says he is or I say you are @weev doesn't make it true. In any legal system that is not evidence unless they can get the guy who posted it and subpoena him to come and swear preferably with some actual evidence rather than his word. It is hearsay! It is entirely inadmissible! None of it has anything to do with @malwaretech and the guy it meant to be has already themselves posted on twitter and supplied samples of kronos. Google Detectives!
dang 9y ago
I think we're pretty sure that ryanlol isn't weev, but personal nastiness will get you banned here, so please don't comment like this again.
- nthcolumn 9y ago
  Of course he isn't weev or hitler and that is so obvious - wait you did read the forum post didn't you? If not perhaps you should have done that before commenting but giving you the benefit of the doubt and just having some lack of comprehension - I was making the point that anyone can do that but it isn't evidence. There was no personal nastiness and but no 5 stars would definitely comment like that again thank you.
  - dang 9y ago
    If you can't or won't stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN we're going to end up banning you, so please stop.
    - nthcolumn 9y ago
      I don;t mean to sound rude but to my mind and I did mention, it was obvious from my comment that I wasn't saying he was weev or hitler or polpot in fact that was exactly the whole point - 'anybody can say anybody is anybody in post in a place such as this and it doesn't make it true' - do you still not get that? How? And if by 'we' you mean ycombinator and are speaking on behalf of the ycombinator then I would point out that the only truly unsubstantive (sic) comments are the ones you have given succour to which are the libelous allegations against Marcus Hutchins. I would expect ycombinator to be asking members to desist from defaming him.