Perhaps most interesting in my reading of the documents provided by the EFF is the correspondence regarding the counter-sue made by Rubin against the NJAG. In

Perhaps most interesting in my reading of the documents provided by the EFF is the correspondence regarding the counter-sue made by Rubin against the NJAG. In it NJAG lay out exactly what they think Rubin did: ...Plaintiffs development, use and deployment of the Tidbit Code which, by plaintiffs own description, strongly suggests the code was designed to hijack consumer's computers to mine for bitcoins, including the computers of New Jersey consumers. Further, prior to the issuance of the Subpoena and Interrogatories, the Division determined that the Tidbit Code was present and active on the websites of entities located in New Jersey and Plaintiff affirmatively sent the Tidbit Code to the New Jersey based entities. They posit that the code was 1. Designed to hijack a consumer's computer for the purpose of mining bitcoins 2. The computers targeted for hacking (implicitly the entire internet) include those of New Jersey consumers 3. The code was found on websites owned by New Jersey entities 4. Rubin sent the code "affirmatively" to those New Jersey entities I think 1. is the weakest point, but that weakness is based on my understanding of the definition of 'hijack'. 2. and 3. seem to follow easily from assumptions, or could be easily shown as fact. 4. seems like it would be harder to prove, but I don't know the implications of the term affirmatively used here.