4 ms·
> Should a prosecutor be allowed to prosecute a case if he doesn't understand the actions taken by the prosecuted? Yes. There's no reason a prosecutor needs t
by skolor 13y ago
> Should a prosecutor be allowed to prosecute a case if he doesn't understand the actions taken by the prosecuted?
Yes.
There's no reason a prosecutor needs to understand the details of exploit development in order to prosecute a case related to it. A hyperbolic comparison would be to claim a prosecutor needs to be able to build a nuke if they were to prosecute someone who built one in their garage. A more apt comparison might be:
Suppose Weev was the first person to discover bleach+ammonia = toxic gas. The prosecution is trying to demonstrate that this was done intentionally, using techniques that are well beyond the average person. An equivalent quote would be
> "He had to purify the ammonia. He had to use a centrifuge. He had to do all sorts of things—I don’t even understand what they are."
- glesica 13y agoBut if he doesn't know what a centrifuge is, then how does he know that most people wouldn't know how to use one? Maybe he's an outlier... Also, I don't think anyone is saying the prosecutor should be an expert at infosec, but he should at least know enough about the supposed crimes committed to know whether or not they are crimes. To extend your nuke analogy, he needn't know how to build a nuke, but he should know or learn what a nuke is and he should know or have someone tell him whether the garage nuke was actually a nuke and, if so, how dangerous it was.
- derekp7 13y agoSo kind of like a science fair student that builds a nuclear reactor by using the material from a smoke detector, and sensitive enough test equipment to demonstrate that a micro chain reaction took place? To someone with appropriate knowledge, this would be nothing special -- but to the general public, "Nuclear Reactor!!! Lock him up!!!"
- lawnchair_larry 13y agoNothing about this case has anything to do with exploit development.