5 ms·

It's pretty standard fare when it comes to the career ambitions of prosecutors. One of the "better" cases is that of Stephen Watt, who was hit with such insane

It's pretty standard fare when it comes to the career ambitions of prosecutors. One of the "better" cases is that of Stephen Watt, who was hit with such insane restitution and fines ($170MM) that he will never escape poverty. For writing code. Not hacking, not exploiting systems or keylogging (someone else did that), not even intending his code to be used for these purposes. Just writing the code. Federal prosecutors and judges are horrible, unfathomably evil people.

rayiner 9y ago
> For writing code. Not hacking, not exploiting systems or keylogging (someone else did that), not even intending his code to be used for these purposes. Just writing the code. That's quite a misrepresentation of the situation: https://www.wired.com/2009/12/stephen-watt https://www.wired.com/2009/12/stephen-watt. > Stephen Watt, a 25-year-old former Morgan Stanley software engineer, pleaded guilty last December to creating a custom sniffing program dubbed “blabla” that Gonzalez and other hackers used to siphon millions of credit and debit card numbers from TJX's network. The breach cost TJX $200 million, according to its 2009 SEC filing. > Prosecutors never alleged that Watt received money for the software he wrote, or directly profited from the hacks. But they brandished more than 300 pages of chats the two friends exchanged that belied Watt's stated ignorance. > As Gonzalez and his accomplices hacked target after target, he sent Watt links to news stories describing a tidal wave of debit fraud spreading around the world. It's like saying "oh, I just made a timer circuit for my friend who I knew was blowing up buildings." Note: the $170 million isn't a "fine." It's restitution. Those are two different things. A fine is used to punish bad conduct. Restitution is used to make a victim whole. Conduct that isn't that "bad" can nonetheless result in huge restitution if it resulted in large damages to the victim. Don't do stuff that can result in huge damages if you don't want to be on the hook for them.
- phillipwills 9y ago
  I don't know... There's a lot that's not being said in that article... As is the case in all articles about court cases... Or court cases, in general. I feel a very real, "burn the witch" attitude when it comes to hackers and coders mixing with the justice system...
  - pm90 9y ago
    It seems more like hackers tend to be a less aware of the seriousness of certain actions. There is much praise and awe for someone capable of getting past the security systems of big corporations, and some programmers want to prove themselves by doing that. What seems to be lost in the conversation is that it’s not just a technical feat, it might be a crime. The law may be a little outdated, and yes more awareness is necessary. Until it’s changed though it is prudent to be careful about such things.

rayiner 9y ago

> For writing code. Not hacking, not exploiting systems or keylogging (someone else did that), not even intending his code to be used for these purposes. Just writing the code. That's quite a misrepresentation of the situation: https://www.wired.com/2009/12/stephen-watt https://www.wired.com/2009/12/stephen-watt. > Stephen Watt, a 25-year-old former Morgan Stanley software engineer, pleaded guilty last December to creating a custom sniffing program dubbed “blabla” that Gonzalez and other hackers used to siphon millions of credit and debit card numbers from TJX's network. The breach cost TJX $200 million, according to its 2009 SEC filing. > Prosecutors never alleged that Watt received money for the software he wrote, or directly profited from the hacks. But they brandished more than 300 pages of chats the two friends exchanged that belied Watt's stated ignorance. > As Gonzalez and his accomplices hacked target after target, he sent Watt links to news stories describing a tidal wave of debit fraud spreading around the world. It's like saying "oh, I just made a timer circuit for my friend who I knew was blowing up buildings." Note: the $170 million isn't a "fine." It's restitution. Those are two different things. A fine is used to punish bad conduct. Restitution is used to make a victim whole. Conduct that isn't that "bad" can nonetheless result in huge restitution if it resulted in large damages to the victim. Don't do stuff that can result in huge damages if you don't want to be on the hook for them.

phillipwills 9y ago
I don't know... There's a lot that's not being said in that article... As is the case in all articles about court cases... Or court cases, in general. I feel a very real, "burn the witch" attitude when it comes to hackers and coders mixing with the justice system...
- pm90 9y ago
  It seems more like hackers tend to be a less aware of the seriousness of certain actions. There is much praise and awe for someone capable of getting past the security systems of big corporations, and some programmers want to prove themselves by doing that. What seems to be lost in the conversation is that it’s not just a technical feat, it might be a crime. The law may be a little outdated, and yes more awareness is necessary. Until it’s changed though it is prudent to be careful about such things.