4 ms·

On one hand, I feel bad for the guy. I mean it seems like unless you're wealthy or have a really good case in these situations hiring a lawyer is too pricey fo

On one hand, I feel bad for the guy. I mean it seems like unless you're wealthy or have a really good case in these situations hiring a lawyer is too pricey for most people and so when the district attorney is coming at you with all they got and they shove you in with the other "drug" criminals and all you have is your appointed court defender, you're going to have a bad time. It's almost like he didn't have a "fair" shot just because the weight of accusations against him and the power behind it versus what he had was just outweighed. On the other hand, he had to of known what was going on. You start down the path of shady, it's just going to get darker. I can't say I blame him or I wouldn't do the same if I had a passion for such things, but still he had to of known the risk. I don't believe in his sentence however and it really sucks the guys at the top only got half the length he did. There might have been other things involved sure, but stil a sentence like that is pretty staggering and life changing.

rosser 14y ago
It's "had to have known", not "had to of known". For the love of all that is good and right in the world, please, "had to have known".
- joshmlewis 14y ago
  What the hell? This isn't grammar school. I was commenting in a hurry on a news site. Calm yourself.
ledge 14y ago
By the same token though, the Tor developers had to have known that Tor would be used for distribution of child pornography, and gun manufacturers surely know that their guns will be used to kill innocent people.
- MaysonL 14y ago
  Not to speak of tobacco...
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  True, but I think there is a distinction to be made between designing a protocol like tor and actually providing the service of setting up tor sites for people who you suspect are using them to distribute child porn.
  - ledge 14y ago
    Sure, I suppose Freenet or some other P2P would have made for a better analogy.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      I think the distinction is when you are dealing directly with known or suspected criminals and providing them services to help in criminal activity rather than providing something that can have criminal uses but also legit ones.
      - tempestn 14y ago
        Exactly, this. Creating Tor is like the general practice of building these traps as a business. Traps have both legal and illegal uses, and you have no way of knowing what will happen with each trap after you build it. No problem there. The problem is when that service is provided directly to someone known to be using it for an illegal purpose. In the case of Tor, it is not provided directly to anyone, but rather available freely to everyone. Now, say Tor came with home installations of the client, and the client mentions to the installer that now he's got a great way to buy drugs anonymously on SR. That would be a problem.
        pencilcheck 14y ago
        So that means if internet is created for terrorists to solve a problem be more efficient in communication among themselves, the creator of internet would have to be thrown in jail, even if there is also a good use in internet? Or the clothes that you are wearing, it could be created for smothering people, aren't the creators suppose to be executed as well? How about the camera? It was probably designed to create child porn!!! The creators should be fined and be thrown to jail as well!!! What makes the value of a tech, or neutral product, an act or passenger of evil or violation of laws depending on the context it is created in? Who is to decide that? You? Prosecutor? The government? I empathize this guy, as he is not confident enough, and is too kind.
seanc 14y ago
I know humorous links are discouraged on Hacker News, but this is barely humorous, and actually has a point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQdDRrcAOjA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQdDRrcAOjA As an independent contractor he owed it to himself to think through his choices and protect himself more carefully than he did. That said, he did get hosed by a completely crazy and corrupt system. It's just that I think he should have known better.
nathanstitt 14y ago
This is a perfect example of where it is absolutely necessary to consult an attorney before starting a business, or expanding into offering new services. Everyone complains about having to pay attorney fees, but in this case it would have saved the guy YEARS in prison. Don't just rely on "well I read on the internet somewhere that if my customer's don't mention drugs explicitly I'm OK" And even if the attorney gives bad advice, it's still worthwhile. It would have sounded so much better in front a jury if he could have said: "Yes, I was worried I might be breaking the law, so I consulted XYZ attorney and he assured me it was ok. Here's his written opinion and bill"

rosser 14y ago

It's "had to have known", not "had to of known". For the love of all that is good and right in the world, please, "had to have known".

joshmlewis 14y ago
What the hell? This isn't grammar school. I was commenting in a hurry on a news site. Calm yourself.

ledge 14y ago

By the same token though, the Tor developers had to have known that Tor would be used for distribution of child pornography, and gun manufacturers surely know that their guns will be used to kill innocent people.

MaysonL 14y ago
Not to speak of tobacco...
jiggy2011 14y ago
True, but I think there is a distinction to be made between designing a protocol like tor and actually providing the service of setting up tor sites for people who you suspect are using them to distribute child porn.
- ledge 14y ago
  Sure, I suppose Freenet or some other P2P would have made for a better analogy.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    I think the distinction is when you are dealing directly with known or suspected criminals and providing them services to help in criminal activity rather than providing something that can have criminal uses but also legit ones.
    - tempestn 14y ago
      Exactly, this. Creating Tor is like the general practice of building these traps as a business. Traps have both legal and illegal uses, and you have no way of knowing what will happen with each trap after you build it. No problem there. The problem is when that service is provided directly to someone known to be using it for an illegal purpose. In the case of Tor, it is not provided directly to anyone, but rather available freely to everyone. Now, say Tor came with home installations of the client, and the client mentions to the installer that now he's got a great way to buy drugs anonymously on SR. That would be a problem.
      - pencilcheck 14y ago
        So that means if internet is created for terrorists to solve a problem be more efficient in communication among themselves, the creator of internet would have to be thrown in jail, even if there is also a good use in internet? Or the clothes that you are wearing, it could be created for smothering people, aren't the creators suppose to be executed as well? How about the camera? It was probably designed to create child porn!!! The creators should be fined and be thrown to jail as well!!! What makes the value of a tech, or neutral product, an act or passenger of evil or violation of laws depending on the context it is created in? Who is to decide that? You? Prosecutor? The government? I empathize this guy, as he is not confident enough, and is too kind.

seanc 14y ago

I know humorous links are discouraged on Hacker News, but this is barely humorous, and actually has a point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQdDRrcAOjA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQdDRrcAOjA As an independent contractor he owed it to himself to think through his choices and protect himself more carefully than he did. That said, he did get hosed by a completely crazy and corrupt system. It's just that I think he should have known better.

nathanstitt 14y ago

This is a perfect example of where it is absolutely necessary to consult an attorney before starting a business, or expanding into offering new services. Everyone complains about having to pay attorney fees, but in this case it would have saved the guy YEARS in prison. Don't just rely on "well I read on the internet somewhere that if my customer's don't mention drugs explicitly I'm OK" And even if the attorney gives bad advice, it's still worthwhile. It would have sounded so much better in front a jury if he could have said: "Yes, I was worried I might be breaking the law, so I consulted XYZ attorney and he assured me it was ok. Here's his written opinion and bill"