I agree the jurisdiction issue is an interesting one but the US as a whole has a long history of overreach (eg I know someone who worked in the UK who was issue

I agree the jurisdiction issue is an interesting one but the US as a whole has a long history of overreach (eg I know someone who worked in the UK who was issued with a bench warrant for his arrest by a state judge in the US because he worked on a site that "enabled" Americans to gamble online). I also agree that (5) is an odd argument. From [1]: > Know this, however: There is no Fifth Amendment privilege to refuse to produce subpoenaed documents on the ground their contents are self-incriminating; courts hold that such information is not "compelled testimony." However, as explained below, there is a crucial corollary: In certain circumstances the act of producing such documents may indeed be entitled to protection under the Fifth Amendment. - See more at: http://www.callawyer.com/Clstory.cfm?eid=920910#sthash.NmnSC4GZ.dpuf http://www.callawyer.com/Clstory.cfm?eid=920910#sthash.NmnSC... On the last point, by a strict definition of intent [2], you are probably correct. However, recklessness and negligence can constitute criminal intent. You can argue that it's not reasonable to hold someone accountable for what someone else does with their program. It's easy to fall into what I call the "engineer's trap" here. An example is "you can't prove someone else didn't use my Wifi to distribute [pick your poison], therefore you can't find me guilty". While strictly true, the law doesn't work that way. Subjective standards and tests are applied in situations like this. So if law enforcement can show [bad activity] was happening only when you were home, stopped when you went on vacation and happened on many occasions the balance of evidence will suggest you're responsible even if you can't strictly prove it. So if you designed and distributed a Windows program that was a RATing toolkit that worked with the click of a button and the only real purpose is [illegal stuff] then an argument like "I'm not responsible for what people use this for" will fail before a judge and jury as not being "reasonable". [1]: http://www.callawyer.com/Clstory.cfm?eid=920910 http://www.callawyer.com/Clstory.cfm?eid=920910 [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#United_States