3 ms·
The article says it was a packet sniffer. How would he know what the planned use was? In terms of your analogy, it would be like finding out only later that you
by gknoy 14y ago
The article says it was a packet sniffer. How would he know what the planned use was? In terms of your analogy, it would be like finding out only later that you opened the door for a crook. (Of course, he might have known from other correspondence, but it seems strange to assume that.)
- OGinparadise 14y agoThe article cannot substitute for what the jurors saw, to be fair. Not that jurors are infallible, but still, all we know comes from a few lines on Wired. Presumably the jurors saw the evidence and didn't believe his denials. There is knowing with all its degrees but also there is 'should have known.' I suspect that he knew what his pals were up to and that's good enough.
- rayiner 14y agoThe article, if you read through to the second page, also says: 1) The prosecutors had IRC logs found on his computer that suggest he knew in general terms what Gonzales was doing with his packet sniffer, and was receiving links from Gonzales about his break-ins; 2) Watts admitted that he knew Gonzales was doing something wrong. If he genuinely had no idea what his software would have been used for that would be a totally different case.
- tptacek 14y agoAs I understand it (that is: minimally) it was not just a packet sniffer. Why would anyone bother to write a packet sniffer anymore? It was a sniffer designed to capture credit card transaction information.