Privacy And National Security Concerns Play Second Fiddle To Administration's Attempts To Control The Narrative

FBI Arrests Creator Of Remote Access Tool, Rather Than Those Abusing It To Commit Crime

from the nice-work,-g-men! dept

Mon, Apr 3rd 2017 9:32am — Tim Cushing

The DOJ is attempting to prosecute the creator of a remote access software -- not because he used it for nefarious purposes -- but because it can (and has been) used by criminals. Kevin Poulsen has the whole bizarre story at The Daily Beast -- one that involves a 26-year-old programmer and the remote administration tool (RAT) he created and sold.

Taylor Huddleston, creator of NanoCore, a RAT that has been linked to intrusions in ten countries, had his home raided by FBI agents on December 6th. The 14-page indictment paints Huddleston as a willing accomplice -- someone who sold his product to bad people to do bad things.

But the facts of the case -- things that can be proven with forum chat logs and Huddleston's proactive efforts to prevent his RAT from being abused -- disagree with the government's narrative. NanoCore does all the things an administrative tool is expected to do, including keylogging and granting control to remote administrators. But Huddleston claims he created the tool to be a low-cost solution for cash-strapped businesses and small government agencies. His actions appear to back up the claims that he never intended this to be a plaything for criminal hackers.

While Huddleston did debut and offer his product for sale at HackForums -- hardly the best marketplace if one wants to be seen as purely innocent -- he took corrective actions and issued strict warnings about illegal deployment.

[H]uddleston found himself routinely admonishing people not to use his software for crime. “NanoCore does not permit illegal use,” he wrote in one post. In another, “NanoCore is NOT malware. It is intended to be used legitimately and I don’t want to see words like ‘slave’ and ‘infect.’” Huddleston backed his words with action. Whenever he saw evidence that a particular buyer was using the product to hack, he’d log in to Net Seal and disable that user’s copy, cutting the hacker off from his infected slaves.

Net Seal is another of Huddleston's creations. It allows users to protect their IP by allowing them to shut down questionable copies of their software -- like copies purchased with stolen credit cards. Oddly enough, this IP protection tool is also named in the indictment as more evidence of Huddleston's criminal intent.

“Net Seal licensing software is licensing software for cybercriminals,” the indictment declares. For this surprising charge—remember, Huddleston use the licenses to fight crooks and pirates—the government leans on the conviction of a Virginia college student named Zachary Shames, who pleaded guilty in January to selling hackers a keystroke logging program called Limitless. Unlike Huddleston, Shames embraced malicious use of his code. And he used Net Seal to protect and distribute it.

That ridiculous claim shows how far the government is willing to go to pin the bad deeds of criminals it can't catch on the creator of the software they're abusing. But the government has to show Huddleston created the software with the intent that it be used for criminal activity. That's going to be extremely tough to prove. So, it looks like the government's hoping to turn Huddleston into a cooperative witness or pressure him into a plea deal that will prevent it from having to climb this evidentiary mountain.

One of the tools at the government's disposal is particularly nefarious. Huddleston wrote and sold software to get his head above water financially. The small amount of money he made from selling Net Seal and NanoCore (he fully divested his ownership of the latter late last year for a whole $5,000) allowed him to purchase a very modest $60,000 house for him and his girlfriend. The government wants to seize the house, claiming it was purchased with the proceeds of illegal activity. But it has yet to prove the sale of these two tools was a criminal act in and of itself. The horrible thing about forfeiture is the government can uncouple this from the prosecution and file an administrative claim which would place Huddleston's new home in its hands and shift the burden of proof to the indicted programmer.

The only way this case doesn't blow up in the government's face is if it can convince Huddleston not to go to trial. This placement of secondhand guilt on the creator of a remote administration tool is idiotic and disingenuous. No one's going after Microsoft for building the same functionality into its operating system, even though it's routinely abused by criminals and scam artists.

What this really boils down to is law enforcement laziness, which it commonly refers to as "efficiency." It's incredibly easy to find the creator of software abused by criminals because a creator who doesn't feel he's committed any criminal act isn't going to do much of anything to cover his tracks or get off the grid. It's punishment that only makes sense to misguided prosecutors and FBI officials who feel any successful bust is a good bust. And if they do succeed in putting Huddleston in prison, absolutely no one will be vindicated.

In the meantime, Huddleston has to fight back with his hands tied. He was released on bond but forbidden to use the internet. His arraignment takes place in a city 16 hours from where he lives. His recently-purchased home may not be his for much longer. And all the criminals misusing his product -- the ones he actively fought back against -- are still out there committing criminal acts.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: doj, fbi, liability, nanocore, net seal, rat, remote access, secondary liability, taylor huddleston

62 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

rw (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 8:51am

Our government dollars at work...abusing the innocent while protecting the actual guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 2:58pm
  
  Re:
  > the judge ordered him to stay completely off the
  > internet, whether by computer or smartphone
  
  How does one "stay completely off the internet" in today's world?
  
  Merely making a telephone call on a landline or watching television involves use of the internet. Taking money out of an ATM or making a credit card purchase at Target involves using the internet. Driving a modern car involves use of the internet. Even driving an old car in one of the toll lanes in my city involves use of the internet. Hell, just riding the elevator in my building involves use of the internet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz (profile), 4 Apr 2017 @ 2:16pm
    
    Re: Re:
    
    Merely making a telephone call on a landline or watching television involves use of the internet.
    
    Most bills are paid online nowadays too. This is like a judge ordering someone not to read their snail mail.
    
    The UN has declared that internet access disruption is a human rights violation. Can a judge order you stop using electricity or water as condition of your bond? How is this different?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 10:58pm
  
  Re:
  so, can we throw Bill Gates and the rest of his crew in prison for life without parole now?
  
  his software is the most widely deployed tactical attack platform ever, it is LITERALLY used to nuke stuff from Earth orbit.
  
  i'm speaking of MS Windows of course :p
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vidiot (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 9:10am

Surprised he still has the house... there aren't too many cases these days in which the conviction precedes the seizure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 10:04am
  
  Re:
  I'm surprised too, but for a different reason. I'm surprised the house is still standing after an FBI raid on such an obviously dangerous individual.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JoeCool (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 10:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    You're thinking of the police. The FBI aren't nearly so bad, especially when they're already thinking about taking the house for themselves.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Yeah Sure, 3 Apr 2017 @ 11:30am
  
  Re: Rule by insanity
  Agreed. Or destroyed while being searched.
  
  FBII, acronym for Fucking Bunch off Idiots (with guns and attitude).
  
  Think of gun manufacturers Smith and Wesson, etc.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 9:29am

This need a lot of publicity to prevent the laziness from acquiring a very problematic precedent while skipping the courts. He needs financial help. Does he have some crowdfunding campaign?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 9:56am
  
  Re:
  If he does, it better be managed by someone else - he's prohibited from using the internet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 9:59am
  
  Re:
  If he doesn't, you might want to step up and contact his attorney and potentially create one. I will contribute if I see a link later today or tomorrow.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Roger Strong (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 11:20am
  
  Re:
  Would being forbidden from using the internet make running a crowdfunding campaign rather difficult?
  
  Would the DOJ seize any money to be used for his defense as "proceeds of crime?"
  
  If someone runs the campaign for him, would they prosecute him for "using the internet by proxy?"
  
  Is this case designed to provoke rhetorical questions?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 11:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    Hope somebody has his ass covered. I'm not even in the US or I'd volunteer to manage a crowdfund campaign.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bergman (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 2:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Well, denying him legal representation is also a felony.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Roger Strong (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 3:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The argument has been made - by people who have had all their money seized - that it means they've been prevented from fighting an effective legal battle. (As opposed to a few minutes attention by an overworked public defender.)
      
      If you also take away a programmer's internet access and products - and his computers - you're also denying him further income for living expenses, let alone a proper defense. Taking away his house and making him homeless is just the cherry on top.
      
      That denying him legal representation is a felony is irrelevant, when that felony is committed by the very people responsible for prosecuting it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 9:55am

Ha! In this context -- defending an enabler of hackers -- you're even praising DRM: "Net Seal ... allows users to protect their IP".
This person appointed himself to police his products so clearly knew was at the margin of a slippery slope.

Whatever intentions were, now don't matter. That's just fact. You may think will escape because "legally" clear, but the Gestapo system doesn't care beans once they can plausibly pin something on you.

Choose your battles. Stay away from the margins, kids: dangerous places. And don't even defend those who knowingly take risks, they'll just drag you down with them. -- Instead promote the old straight-and-narrow so that you have firm place to stand when criticizing the Gestapo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 2:23pm
  
  Re: Ha! In this context -- defending an enabler of hackers -- you're even praising DRM: "Net Seal ... allows users to protect their IP".
  And...so what? It only looks like a contradiction to you because you never understood Techdirt's position in the first place.
  
  Honestly, for those who do understand, you come off as a loony at best.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2018 @ 9:31am
    
    Re: Re: Ha! In this context -- defending an enabler of hackers -- you're even praising DRM: "Net Seal ... allows users to protect their IP".
    AND he's now got 33 months in jail.
    
    Yet I'm the loony, eh?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 3:01pm
  
  Re: Ha! In this context -- defending an enabler of hackers -- you're even praising DRM: "Net Seal ... allows users to protect their IP".
  > Whatever intentions were, now don't matter.
  
  Actually, his intentions are the very heart of the issue. Any time a product has dual-use capability (legal and illegal uses), the intent of the person is the key factor in the case.
  
  So saying his intentions don't matter couldn't be a more wrong statement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2018 @ 9:33am
    
    Re: Re: Ha! In this context -- defending an enabler of hackers -- you're even praising DRM: "Net Seal ... allows users to protect their IP".
    
    So saying his intentions don't matter couldn't be a more wrong statement.
    
    Nope, YOU ARE PROVED WRONG. He'll be doing 33 months in JAIL.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2018 @ 10:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ha! In this context -- defending an enabler of hacke
      What? Him being in jail is irrelevant when the law itself is heavily skewed, dummy
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 10:00am

So ummm, DRM is proof of him doing something illegal? If they push that too hard they might find themselves in a fun mess. There are plenty of us willing to wholeheartedly agree that DRM should be criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 2:24pm
  
  Re:
  Yeah, that would be one hell of a legal precedent to set. I wonder, if someone were to point this out to the MAFIAA, would the FBI dogs be 'mysteriously' called off?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 10:04am

Please tell me EFF is getting involved here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 10:05am

Then they came for the software developers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 3 Apr 2017 @ 10:07am

Isn't it obvious?
Huddleston used Net Seal for shutting down copies of his remote administration and keylogging software used for illegal purposes.

So the FBI locked him up, and he is now forbidden to use the Internet.

Apparently he disabled one too many copies of his software and they decided to put a stop to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JoeCool (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 10:17am
  
  Re: Isn't it obvious?
  Yeah, he shut down the FBI's copy as what they were doing was highly illegal. :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mat (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 1:39pm
    
    Re: Re: Isn't it obvious?
    ... I hate to say it but this sounds far too logical.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 2:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Isn't it obvious?
      Logical or likely?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Bergman (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 2:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't it obvious?
        Both.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 4 Apr 2017 @ 12:48am
    
    Re: Re: Isn't it obvious?
    You know that your verbal skills are in need of improvement when the guy rephrasing your obvious (or so I would have thought) point gets the "Insightful" award rather than yourself.
    
    I'd aim for the "Funny" award, but nobody gets my jokes either.
    
    Sob.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JoeCool (profile), 6 Apr 2017 @ 7:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Isn't it obvious?
      Well, the parent just said that the FBI got him for shutting down one too many users, so I took it to the logical conclusion - the one user too many was THEM. I was aiming for funny, but sometimes the jokes are also insightful.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 10:07am

"He was released on bond but forbidden to use the internet"

How is this legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 10:19am
  
  Re:
  Because citizens keep voting in politicians that don't give a fucking shit! Followed by comments of "its not our fault for this", but oh fuck someone is trying to get rid of illegals, lets go protest.
  
  "Priorities"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JoeCool (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 10:19am
  
  Re:
  Judges can put almost ANY restriction on a person's release pending trial. The most common is a restriction on travel, but they can require virtually anything at all. If you don't like it, you can always go back to your cell until the trial. In some cases this is a good thing, and in others, a bad thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- NeghVar (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 12:48pm
  
  Re:
  Back in the 2004, a co-worker was busted for hacking. Part of the bail was the he was forbidden to use any electronic devices. He challenged it because that forbids him from contacting his attorney (phones and cars) plus he also uses a hearing aid which he claimed would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. Along with a few other things. The scope was narrowed, but I do not know the details. The internet is becoming so interwoven with our daily lives that being forbidden to use it is nearly impossible to comply with.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Roger Strong (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 1:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    For cable cutters - and there's a good chance that includes this programmer - it wouldn't even have to be "no electronic devices." "No internet" means no phones and no TV.
    
    In my case, not owning a car and having to reload my transit pass on the internet, it would even mean "no transportation." And "no banking or paying utility bills."
    
    And being a programmer and supporting my software at several companies across the country, it means "no job and no income."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Bergman (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 2:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You couldn't even walk somewhere in a lot of places with an internet or electronics ban, since a lot of traffic signals and crosswalk signals are networked these days.
      
      Smart meters on electric and gas utilities are networked -- let's hope your internet or electronics ban doesn't coincide with a cold winter or it might become illegal for you to not freeze to death.
      
      Refrigerators are sometimes networked, so are some pantry doors. Some food packages have RFID tags and auto-order software. Amazon sells these little button fobs that you stick to things like your dishwasher and clothes washer, to order more soap when you run low -- those would be banned by this sort of order, but appearing in court in dirty clothes could get you jailed for contempt.
      
      Given how many things are electronic and/or networked these days, even living off grid in a tent in the woods might indirectly violate the ban.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew A. Sawtell, 3 Apr 2017 @ 10:15am

Operative Sentence from the Story...
"While Huddleston did debut and offer his product for sale at HackForums -- hardly the best marketplace if one wants to be seen as purely innocent"

Have to give credit where credit is due to Tim when he wrote this article and put that issue upfront and center. Kinda gives a better tone for the rest of the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 10:21am
  
  Re: Operative Sentence from the Story...
  Does it really matter as long as the activity is legal? Should we presume guilt for sellers at gun shows or private sales?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 10:37am
    
    Re: Re: Operative Sentence from the Story...
    Yes, yes we should...
    
    ~Most Americans and generally ALL stupid people that population planet earth.
    
    (History is rife with guilty until proven innocent nations & cultures)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 3:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Operative Sentence from the Story...
      > ~Most Americans and generally ALL stupid people that
      > population planet earth.
      
      I love it when those who can't even put together a linguistically coherent sentence call other people stupid.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bergman (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 2:33pm
    
    Re: Re: Operative Sentence from the Story...
    We can add used book stores to that presumption of guilt.
    
    After all, more people have been killed by maliciously applied knowledge of chemistry throughout history than have been killed by maliciously applied bullets.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Matthew A. Sawtell, 4 Apr 2017 @ 9:44am
    
    Re: Re: Operative Sentence from the Story...
    More on the lines of stupidity on Huddleston's part on which venue he attempted to sell his wares. To take your analogy, he was attempting to conduct a 'trunk sale in the middle of the ghetto/barrio/trailer park' versus going to a publicly advertised and legal market with the proper vendor licensing.
    
    In nothing else, if said activities were brought to light in your analogy, legal customers would be a hard thing to come by, for fear of getting entangled any illicit activity.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 3:05pm
  
  Re: Operative Sentence from the Story...
  > Kinda gives a better tone for the rest of the article.
  
  Despite its nefarious-sounding name, the site isn't all about hacking. It has sections on legitimate coding, computer gaming, even financial investment strategies. There are long threads about PokeMon and how to craft a cool YouTube page.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Wanderer (profile), 4 Apr 2017 @ 5:25am
    
    Re: Re: Operative Sentence from the Story...
    Most of that sounds as if it fits quite well within the concept of hacking, in its original and proper sense. Computer gaming is a bit afield, but likely to have overlap with the interests of those whose hobbies include the other things, so it makes sense that it would also be accounted for.
    
    I suspect both that you're using the term "hacking" in its popular-culture sense, which is more properly called "cracking", and that the site itself may not have been named with that sense of the term in mind. (The proper sense is, I believe, considered a superset of the other sense.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Median Wilfred, 3 Apr 2017 @ 10:43am

When will the FBI go after Dameware?
Anybody here have to use some coporate-owned computer with Dameware installed? Now, THAT'S a RAT.

When will the Fibbies go after Dameware? It's probably 10x more effective than some shareware RAT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Roger Strong (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 11:35am
  
  Re: When will the FBI go after Dameware?
  Remote Desktop products from Symantec's PCAnywhere and TeamViewer have long been used for similar crimes. The company that acquired Dameware is worth at least $4.5 billion.
  
  To answer your question, "never." They have the resources to defend themselves. This guy doesn't.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 2:04pm
    
    Re: Re: When will the FBI go after Dameware?
    Exactly, they really do like to pick on the little guy. Which is why it is so important for rights and liberty to be taken far more seriously than they are.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 3 Apr 2017 @ 11:33am

I'm 100% on his side, although I firmly oppose the use of products like Net Seal. Copyright holders already have too much control over their products, the last thing we need is for software to have a remote killswitch. Taken to the next logical step, such software could be used to control where and when a particular piece of software is used. Maybe you're not allowed to use it between midnight and 8AM. Maybe you can't use it in the weekends, or from certain cities. What happens if a hacker obtains your license code and uses it for criminal purposes? What if the person sending the deactivation code makes a mistake and targets you by accident?

Do we really want that? Online activation is bad enough (and something I will never personally accept), but now companies can remotely disable your software? No thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HegemonicDistortion (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 11:46am

But of course it's "see no evil" when it comes to Hacking Team, Gamma Group, NSO Group, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aerinai (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 12:11pm

Is EFF all over this?
I would hope that some organization like the EFF or ACLU would help this guy out. This is ridiculous.

Also, it seems like a waste of FBI resources... I mean, if he can 'shut off' copies of software used for nefarious purposes, wouldn't it be in the FBI's best interest to work with him to find the people who bought and were administrating these 'infected' machines?

So much for thinking...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 1:57pm
  
  Re: Is EFF all over this?
  Also, it seems like a waste of FBI resources... I mean, if he can 'shut off' copies of software used for nefarious purposes, wouldn't it be in the FBI's best interest to work with him to find the people who bought and were administrating these 'infected' machines?
  
  Keep in mind this is the FBI we're talking about, an agency that prefers to manufacture their own 'terrorists' to bust rather than do anything about real threats.
  
  The agency has an aversion to work, going after the actual guilty parties would require work, therefore it's easier to go after this guy and score an easy plea deal after draining him of any resources to fight back.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
D.C. Pathogen (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 12:16pm

Hammers
Lock up all the hammer manufacturers!
How many of these wicked devices have been used to Kill, Murder or maim innocent people or unexpecting law enforcement officers. And the children, OMG the Children!

Lock 'em up - all of them, Craftsman, Stanley, Husky, dewalt....no...lock them all up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 1:01pm

This is just a guess:
He probably didn't want to give up his source code when the government came asking... so they stopped asking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 3 Apr 2017 @ 2:10pm
  
  Re: This is just a guess:
  So they'll just asset forfeit his source code. What a convenient tool in the hand of law enforcement. In the age of "intellectual property", everything has a price, and everything that has a price can be grabbed by law enforcement if it's connected with illegal activities. And everything is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2017 @ 7:42am
    
    Re: Re: This is just a guess:
    I was thinking along the lines of them wanting to use it for themselves for their spying business... Who among us in here doubt that the government would be eager to destroy peoples lives in any way they could if it meant another toy for them to play with?
    I still remember when watching movies about conspiracies as a youth... It was nice back then to be able to think of it as fiction.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Châu, 3 Apr 2017 @ 8:06pm

Revenge - Release source code
Release source code GPL for every person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2017 @ 9:11am

Third Party Liability
This is why we can't have nice things.

Who's next box manufacturers after some psyco burns someone in a cardboard bonfire? Really why go after the one who does wrongdoing when you can just cut off the material supply they use amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coyoty (profile), 4 Apr 2017 @ 10:31pm

In the hood...
When will they raid L.L. Bean for selling ski masks to potential robbers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2017 @ 5:45pm

Without math there is no encryption.

FBI arrests math teachers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2018 @ 9:30am

Another one of Techdirt's pet criminals goes to JAIL!
"Taylor Huddleston, of Arkansas, USA, pleaded guilty in July 2017 to one charge of aiding and abetting computer intrusions by building and peddling his $25 software nasty. In addition to the 33-month sentence handed down on Friday, he will also get two years of supervised release. He had faced a maximum of 10 years in prison."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]