Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Call Yourself a Hacker, Lose Your 4th Amendment Rights

timothy posted about a year ago | from the such-tricks-of-conjuring-as-never-were dept.

The Courts 488

An anonymous reader writes "As described on the DigitalBond blog, a security researcher was subjected to a court ordered search in which a lack of pre-notification was premised on his self description as a 'hacker.' From the court order, 'The tipping point for the Court comes from evidence that the defendants – in their own words – are hackers. By labeling themselves this way, they have essentially announced that they have the necessary computer skills and intent to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their role in that act.'"

cancel ×

488 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Stallman would have something to say about this (5, Insightful)

twocows (1216842) | about a year ago | (#45202499)

Aside from the obvious abuse of power, there's this: http://www.stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html [stallman.org]

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#45202597)

they have essentially announced that they have the necessary computer skills and intent to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their role in that act.

I wasn't aware that capability implied intent. I suppose everyone who owns a gun now should just surrender their 4th amendment rights, since they have the ability to kill people. Someone find out where this judge is; let's put his name here and on as many web pages as possible so anytime anyone googles his name, they can point to this as a reason to have their case retried by a different judge who doesn't hate America.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (-1, Troll)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year ago | (#45202781)

Every "legal" Gun owner has his Guns registered. So your argument is moot.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (0)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year ago | (#45202819)

uh, legal 'handgun' perhaps, but not rifles no?

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202963)

Depends on the state you live in. Most states no, but there are exceptions.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (3, Informative)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about a year ago | (#45203047)

Not even that in most states. There are no requirements to register a firearm if the seller isn't a FFL holder in my state.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (4, Informative)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#45203109)

I've never lived in a state where I have to register any of my firearms (handguns or rifles).

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (3, Informative)

pla (258480) | about a year ago | (#45203231)

Not even that.

The USA - By which I mean federal regulations, not individual states - Has absolutely no registration requirement for any small arms (non select-fire and less than or equal to .50 caliber).

It also has no mandatory waiting period, no mandatory background check (that restriction applies to a particular class of dealers, not to buyers), no ammunition capacity limits... And, the law by default allows both concealed and open carry.

Seven states (most of them pretty obvious) have registration requirements for all guns. Another seven have registration requirements for just pistols. All but two have requirements for concealed carry, but that applies to the person, not the guns. A whopping 33 states, however, allow relatively uninhibited open carry, with another 10 allowing licensed open carry. So realistically, in most of the US, you don't need to carry concealed, you can literally walk around with a rifle slung across your back and a holster on your hip.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (2, Informative)

databeast (19718) | about a year ago | (#45202843)

please tell me this is some attempt at sarcasm, and you aren't actually that ignorant?

Many states (such as the one I reside in) specifically ban the registration of firearms in their state constitution.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (2, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about a year ago | (#45203009)

This map [opencarry.org] specifically enumerates and delineates where and how registration is required. Here's a hint: it's only in like 10% of the country where the Constitution is regularly ignored, e.g. California and New York.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#45203123)

Even in NY, not all guns need to be registered except for certain Freedom-free zones (like NYC)

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (-1, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#45203307)

I like how you don't have an actual argument so you use Ad Hom to spread FUD. The PR company that runs the NRA must be proud of you.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (-1, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#45203287)

The constitution says nothing about gun registration. Stop making registration into something ti is not.

Also:
The constitution specifically says congress has the right to regulate. It's IN the fucking amendment.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (0)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#45203265)

"Many states (such as the one I reside in) specifically ban the registration of firearms "

SO it takes the rights of the people to make their own decision? What if I want my firearm to be registered?

Oh, right, it's freedom when the result is what you want, and not freedom when it's something else.
got it.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202853)

Uh, no?

Registration is required in only a few places.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202863)

In Georgia, USA you don't register your guns.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202901)

What? There's no requirement for registration of firearms in the united state of america. The only requirement is the background check at the time of original purchase (from a dealer). And subsequent transfers of that firearm outside of a shop is totally untraceable. And plenty of legit legal firearms owners make these transfers without every informing any authorities as is their right to do under current law. I make this statement as to their rights without saying wether I think that the law is smart or foolish, because I'm personally conflicted on this issue.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202953)

No they don't. One of the biggest fights in the Gun control debate has been over a global registry.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (1)

cusco (717999) | about a year ago | (#45203037)

Hee, hee, Washington State no only does not have a state-mandated gun registration law, but we're also an 'open carry' state. If I wear a gun openly I don't even need a permit, just if I want to conceal the weapon. I know of a group of people on Whidbey Island who have a monthly 'open carry' breakfast, which always freaks out the new waitress at Dennys. For that matter I could even wear a sword or machete here. Where do you live?

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year ago | (#45203057)

Every "legal" Gun owner has his Guns registered. So your argument is moot.

I can tell that you have never owned a firearm, because that statement is incorrect.

There are too many variables out there for your statement to be true. Handguns usually require a 3-day waiting period (depending on state) between purchase and receiving, but only if you purchase it at a retail outlet or an FFL holding firearms dealer. Meanwhile? Rifles/shotguns may or may not require registration, depending on state and local laws.

Any purchase made directly from a private owner (classifieds, yard sales, private sales at gun shows, auctions, etc) do not require any sort of registration - at all. Firearms received as a gift do not require registration at all (I have two that were given to me as gifts, one of which is a .45 ACP handgun).

Out of my entire firearms collection, only one of them is actually registered to any governmental entity at all (it's an antique Mosin-Nagant carbine whose serial # and markings trace it to the WWII Battle of Stalingrad), and that was only because I bought it from an FFL-holding dealer who insisted.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about a year ago | (#45203157)

So you put scare quotes around legal why? Perhaps to have an out when your statement is shown to be abysmally wrong?

Re: Stallman would have something to say about thi (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year ago | (#45202811)

It's more like if you claimed to be a professional killer and later claimed you kill deer.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (5, Interesting)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#45202839)

No, but the defendant's repeated advocacy of open source implies intent to publish source code. The lawsuit is alleging that the defendant stole source code from his prior employer for the purpose of open-sourcing it as his own product.

Since the defendant clearly has intent to open-source his product, and if it were indeed stolen source it would immediately cause irreparable harm, and the defendant's own statement shows he has the skill to cause such harm quickly (well within the usual timeframes of the court process), an immediately-executed warrant is reasonable.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45203021)

I was recently involved as a third party in a lawsuit where similar allegations were made. They were entirely without merit and totally malicious, simply being made in order to cause the defendant the financial hardship of having to be drawn through the legal system.

Just because one party alleges intent, does not mean there is any.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (-1, Flamebait)

Oligonicella (659917) | about a year ago | (#45203245)

As an AC, your anecdote is not verifiable and so worthless. Perhaps you could link?

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (5, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#45203099)

No, but the defendant's repeated advocacy of open source implies intent to publish source code.

In the same way my advocacy of and interest in international culture implies intent to engage in "unamerican" activities? In the same way that candidates for state senate saying "if itâ(TM)s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down" implies the candidate is a rapist? We've been down that road before. It doesn't lead anywhere you want to be.

The lawsuit is alleging that the defendant stole source code from his prior employer for the purpose of open-sourcing it as his own product.

And was there evidence to back up this claim, such as server logs, statements by the defendant, etc.? Because from what I've read the answer is no, there wasn't. The only evidence cited in the ex parte order was the defendant's advocacy of open source and his prior access to the ex-employer's code.

Since the defendant clearly has intent to open-source his product...

Which is his right, if he designed it on his own, as many other people have done after working on a closed source product...

and if it were indeed stolen source it would immediately cause irreparable harm

... And yet no proof the code was stolen was provided.

an immediately-executed warrant is reasonable.

No, it isn't. They need to prove he's in possession of stolen property first. His statements about what he would or wouldn't do with it have absolutely no weight whatsoever in issuing the search warrant. That the judge is making these statements implies that the evidence he had done so was very, very weak, to the point they had to rely on circumstantial evidence that is only dubiously related to the matter at hand to secure the warrant.

This sounds more like a case of a manager acting without evidence that any wrongdoing had occurred and decided to use law enforcement resources to harass the former employee. This is, for lack of a better term... a domestic dispute. It's a he said, she said situation. Except that in this case, it's a company, not an ex.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (5, Insightful)

Lithdren (605362) | about a year ago | (#45202937)

Came here to say exactly that. Reviewing what they say in the artical linked:
 
 

The Court has struggled over the issue of allowing the copying of the hard drive. This is a serious invasion of privacy and is certainly not a standard remedy, as the discussion of the case law above demonstrates. The tipping point for the Court comes from evidence that the defendants â" in their own words â" are hackers. By labeling themselves this way, they have essentially announced that they have the necessary computer skills and intent to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their role in that act. (underline added) And concealment likely involves the destruction of evidence on the hard drive of Thuenâ(TM)s computer. For these reasons, the Court finds this is one of the very rare cases that justifies seizure and copying of the hard drive.

Way I read this...they were unsure if this guy stole code from the company he worked for, they were pushing to seize his computer at home because they felt he had stolen code to release as an open-source option to the software he helped write that they wanted to lease out instead. The court, torn on the issue, decides that because he calls himself a 'hacker' he's able to not only steal the code, but cover his tracks. So they better seize his equipment before he gets a chance.

I hope someone beats some sense into this judge, just being capable of something does not mean you might do it. We're all murders because we all own cars capable of running people over and killing them. We're all mass murders because we have bleach/cleaning fluids at home we could dump into local water supplies poisioning the entire area. Next time someone gets hit by a car while on their bike in a hit-and-run they'll need to bring in as probable suspects everyone in the tri-state area who owns a drivers liscence. What kind of insane crap is this?

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (5, Informative)

RenderSeven (938535) | about a year ago | (#45203049)

Someone find out where this judge is; let's put his name here

B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (4, Interesting)

RenderSeven (938535) | about a year ago | (#45203145)

Wikipedia page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._Lynn_Winmill [wikipedia.org]

Perhaps someone could update the page to include a "Controversies" section that referenced TFA? Properly written NPOV would do more to undermine his decision than posting to random tin-foil-hat sites.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (4, Funny)

fsagx (1936954) | about a year ago | (#45203103)

That's not the scariest part. If you are a hacker and you have a penis, you MIGHT BE a rapist or child molester!

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (1)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | about a year ago | (#45203263)

I totally get your point, but I can kill without a gun. They have a *device* to kill people with. I can kill people too, using my kitchen knife or a bat.

And the world would have something to say also (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202629)

"Take a bath".

Abuse of power? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202691)

That's the power intended to be wielded by the U.S. Volksgerichtshof in a state of emergency, and the U.S. has been for several decades in a state of emergency. After one or two generations of the legal profession being able to put aside the constitution whenever they feel like it, there is enough case law and enough focus on job-relevant interpretations of the law during the education of new members of the profession that this kind of "justice" is perceived as normal.

Re:Abuse of power? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202757)

We prefer to call it a "state of continuing opportunity."

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202743)

Stallman? There is a video of him eating dead skin off his fucking foot!!! And you fags modded twocows insightful?

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202833)

Google "ad hominem." Stallman's hygiene has no bearing on the legitimacy of what he says.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202779)

First I used my left hand to put three chopsticks into my right hand. That was not so hard, though I had to figure out where to put them so that I could control them individually. Then I used my right hand to put the other three chopsticks into my left hand. That was hard, since I had to keep the three chopsticks already in my right hand from falling out. After a couple of tries I got it done.

Bored now.

His point?

I don't have all fucking day to read the ramblings of every Tom, Dick, Harry and Mary.

If I want more info, I'll get it.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202877)

The media has distorted the meaning of the word "hacker" from its original meaning of "clever person." Stallman considers himself a "hacker" so would apparently be forfeiting his 4th amendment protections under this interpretation of the law.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202979)

Is there something Stallman has nottin' to say about?

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#45203025)

Well obviously it's abuse of power. The judge has the the ability to abuse power and therefore, by his own logic, is abusing power.

Re:Stallman would have something to say about this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45203199)

Stop sucking Stallman's dick.

Fourth Amendment Rights? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202521)

They aren't "4th Amendment Rights." They are rights PROTECTED by the Fourth Amendment.
 
Slashdot sucks. Timothy, how much crack have you smoked this week? Certainly much more than "Smokey" from Eddie Murphy's "The PJ's."
 
--Ethanol-fueled

Re:Fourth Amendment Rights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202769)

"They are rights PROTECTED by the Fourth Amendment.", correct, a phrase that is commonly abbreviated to "4th Amendment Rights." Most people have the intelligence to understand plain English.

Re:Fourth Amendment Rights? (2)

mexsudo (2905137) | about a year ago | (#45202907)

"Most people have the intelligence to understand plain English" I wish that were a true statement, but it is not.

Re:Fourth Amendment Rights? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45203093)

Plain English is NOT synonymous with incorrect English. You should go swim in a pot of molten lead.

Re:Fourth Amendment Rights? (1)

casings (257363) | about a year ago | (#45203159)

There is a difference between written and spoken word. Learn it. Live it. Love it. Or get the fuck out.

Wait, what? I'm a unicorn, arrest me? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202539)

I thought it was about a reasonable suspicion of committing a crime, that sort of thing?

If I call myself a sex god do they do diligence on that one too?

Re:Wait, what? I'm a unicorn, arrest me? (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#45202621)

well that's the thing. they're(state) claiming that if you're labeled or label yourself as hacker then that's reasonable suspicion reason for you to be a malicious computer criminal.

sooooo... are they gonna go all SWAT on hackerspaces?

Re:Wait, what? I'm a unicorn, arrest me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202789)

So if someone calls themselves "upset with the government" then it's a reasonable suspicion you're committing treason, sedition?

I'm sure we all see what's wrong with taking self-applied labels at face value and then USING THE LEGAL SYSTEM on that basis, wow.
Every day in America my begin to bug out a little more. Just what the fuck is wrong with people? Don't they teach civics?

Re:Wait, what? I'm a unicorn, arrest me? (2, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#45202935)

actually yes, the next logical step from this is to start searching concerned citizens and political activists who are not allied with either power party. gun activists who talk about private guns being needed to keep the power balance between government and citizens are also obviously planning an armed uprising. and if they got nothing to hide then why would they object to such searches to protect them and their fellow men from TERRORISTS???(of course such searches would also need to be done without warning by armed men who don't announce their presence)

uh and if they taught civics then they would need to answer pesky questions.

Not American (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202581)

If I was American I would maybe give a shit.

Re:Not American (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202745)

First, they came for the Americans and I did nothing because I'm not American...

Re:Not American (3, Informative)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#45203225)

In fact, you should be shitting bricks [motherjones.com] right now. If US have no problem spying foreing presidents communications or even deviating official presidential planes, you think it will care a lot about the diplomatics implications of sending a drone to you or your approximate neighbourhood?

i am a hacker (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202585)

and this is my manifesto...

"and intent" (4, Funny)

darrellg1 (969068) | about a year ago | (#45202599)

So a title implies intent?! This looks like the steepest slope coated in vasteline ever.

Re:"and intent" (2, Insightful)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#45202695)

Just re-read the article but with "cracker" substituted for "hacker" and you'll understand how it seems to a layperson.

Imagine describing yourself as a "thief" - it suggests an intent to steal.

The only issue here is a misinterpretation of jargon.

Re:"and intent" (1)

darrellg1 (969068) | about a year ago | (#45202845)

Ok. Let's play the title game, per your example "thief". You get labled as a thief because you stole some gum when you were 12. Sure doesn't imply you will steal something at 42.

Re:"and intent" (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#45203217)

It's not about having been a thief, but about calling yourself a thief. That's suspicious.

Re:"and intent" (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#45202965)

... coated in vasteline...

VAST-eline? [Yoda]Judge me by my size, do you?[/Yoda]

Re:"and intent" (1)

darrellg1 (969068) | about a year ago | (#45203039)

Yeah, I caught that afterward. Couldn't think of anything witty. Still laughing at myself for it.

They do have the ability to release code silently. (3, Interesting)

iYk6 (1425255) | about a year ago | (#45202649)

The tipping point for the Court comes from evidence that the defendants â" in their own words â" are hackers. By labeling themselves this way, they have essentially announced that they have the necessary computer skills and intent to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their role in that act.

Sounds reasonable. Anyone with an intermediate understanding of computers and the internet would be able to publish something silently. Create an account with a seedbox, upload file, upload torrent to thepiratebay.sx.

It looks like all they did with the "hacker" identification is determine that they were intermediate level with computers and networking.

Judging from the summary, this is a standard courtroom procedure, and the submitter is trying to sensationalize it by leaving out all of the other evidence.

Re:They do have the ability to release code silent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45203089)

I'll bold the relevant portion for you.

The tipping point for the Court comes from evidence that the defendants â" in their own words â" are hackers. By labeling themselves this way, they have essentially announced that they have the necessary computer skills and intent to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their role in that act.

They're saying that merely calling yourself a hacker implies criminal intent.

Re:They do have the ability to release code silent (2)

dissy (172727) | about a year ago | (#45203327)

The tipping point for the Court comes from evidence that the defendants Ã" in their own words Ã" are hackers. By labeling themselves this way, they have essentially announced that they have the necessary computer skills and intent to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their role in that act.

Sounds reasonable.

Does it? Remember that time you used wd-40 and duct tape to fix that little problem with your homes front door?
Implementing a fix in a manor not intended by the original manufacturer is the definition of hacking, thus you sir are a hacker.

Please do elaborate further how it sounds reasonable that you have sacrificed all of your constitutionally protected rights simply because you used a roll of duct tape?

Even if you personally are willing to give up all your constitutionally protected rights for using duct tape, I seriously question how and even IF your choice should in anyway apply to me.
I realize the both of us have already broken 4 federal laws - assuming you haven't yet gone outside today either - but none the less I see no argument why that should become yet another federal crime, simply because I have a roll of duct tape in the house.

The final bit of irony regarding your point of view, is that possession or use of duct tape requires NO computer skills what so ever, let alone the specific computer skills of "turning computer on" or "writing code" to release publicly or privately.

Can you elaborate further on these inconsistencies between your point of view and reality?

A label? That's all it takes? (1)

tchdab1 (164848) | about a year ago | (#45202673)

Then I would also assume that a Court employee would be preoccupied with, um, fairness and justice. And obviously wrong both times.

Meh, too alarmist (1, Informative)

magamiako1 (1026318) | about a year ago | (#45202677)

The post here is entirely too alarmist. Essentially, the guy stole his employer's software because he had a philosophical difference with how the company should be handling the source code and went to offer it himself.

In short, this isn't a "violation of the 4th amendment" so much as it is an excuse to try and get access to the guy's hard drive and recover stolen assets.

And yes, I do believe he stole the code.

Re:Meh, too alarmist (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202865)

It doesn't matter if you believe he stole the code, or even if he actually did steal the code.
What matters is if his rights were violated.
Self-describing as a "hacker" should have no influence in whether someone should be able to access your hard drive.

Re:Meh, too alarmist (3, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | about a year ago | (#45202895)

Essentially, the guy allegedly stole^W copyright-infringed his employer's software because he had a philosophical difference with how the company should be handling the source code and went to offer it himself. And his personal effects were raided by police over what by all rights should be a civil matter to begin with.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Meh, too alarmist (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202913)

It's possible he did, but using illegal arguments and tactics with potentially far-reaching future precedent implications and which directly seem to nullify 4th Amendment CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS isn't really how we used to go after people accused of illegally distributing software, is it?

Did Zuckerberg do the perp walk? Nope. I believe he actually stole it also.

Re:Meh, too alarmist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45203005)

DIgital Assets don't need to be recovered. It is more accurate to say he duplicated with the intent of distribution. Depending on their source control system this could mean he just checked out code locally from the repos. Either way they are not trying to recover anything, most likely just trying to prove he has them and then proceeding to remove them.

Re:Meh, too alarmist (5, Insightful)

Wycliffe (116160) | about a year ago | (#45203055)

In short, this isn't a "violation of the 4th amendment" so much as it is an excuse to try and get access to the guy's hard drive and recover stolen assets.

What do you think a "violation of the 4th amendment" is then? To me "an excuse to bypass the 4th amendment to gain X" is
exactly that. It is a violation and an attempt to bypass the 4th amendment. Whether he is guilty is not the point.
Now if they got a proper warrant and executed it correctly, that's a different story but if they are using an excuse to bypass
proper protocol then it very much is a violation of the 4th amendment. It doesn't really matter what the excuse is either.

Wrong definition (3, Informative)

HalAtWork (926717) | about a year ago | (#45202685)

Since when does hacker mean someone who must "have the necessary computer skills and intent to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their role in that act." Anyone who owns a raspberry pi or jailbreaks their phone can be called a hacker according to these people, and that does not imply the above!

Aren't we all hackers? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202693)


10 echo 'Hello world'
20 goto 10

to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their role in that act.

Public? Slashdot. Check

Concealed? Anonymous coward.. (am now) Check.

Simultaneous? With one fell swoop of the submit button.

Big damn hackers...

Ain't we just.

Re:Aren't we all hackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202751)

That's it, ya dun goofed now!

Re:Aren't we all hackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45203003)

Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

Re:Aren't we all hackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45203073)

Made my day.. It's stupid comments like this with a little humorous context of an "in-joke' make me smile.

The new world (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202739)

In the new world, language is defined by the media. As absurd as it is, the media now effectively controls the "evolution" of language (or should I say "devolution"). When people see it on TV, they repeat it. The few who don't repeat it, or actually question it, are the minority. These individuals have no choice but to make themselves aware of the change -- as ugly as it may be -- and adjust their lives to accomodate it. The long-lost term "hacker" is one of many examples, but one which is particularly dangerous to those who refuse to acknowledge the rule of mass media.

Re:The new world (1)

n1ywb (555767) | about a year ago | (#45202799)

Don't you think that has been true since the time of Gutenberg?

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202761)

New heights of stupidity resp. insolence. And THESE fu**ers are your official representatives...?

Time for a french solution, isn't it?

OK, new term (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202803)

Computer tinkerer. I tinker with computers. At all levels. From the soldering iron to that data you keep in your database behind your website. Pretty much like hackers, but with a different bias.

a predictable outcome. (1)

nimbius (983462) | about a year ago | (#45202807)

you cant premise american society on a steady diet of sensationalized tabloid journalism and pop culture television without conceding the traditional and correct definition of the word 'hacker' will have been distorted to perversion. Because the word is used so frequently as to have become ubiquitous, and its meaning has been so broadened in order to sell movies and television programs, its only natural to assume a judge concluding, 'of course i know what a hacker is' would fail to realize she was taught by Hollywood, the writer of fiction, what the definition was.

this should be ridiculously easy to contest. its time to find an attorney and for lack of a better description, expose the hack used by the litigious corporation to warrant a cease and desist order against this young man. perhaps they'll teach the meaning of FUD along the way.

Full court decision (4, Informative)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about a year ago | (#45202815)

The full court decision is here [scribd.com] . (pdf)

Sexy (1)

tiberus (258517) | about a year ago | (#45202827)

Referring to ones self as something, sadly doesn't make it so.

Re:Sexy (2)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#45203281)

Tell that to Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico, Norton I.

-Steve, Imperator of the Legion of Earth, God-King of all mankind.

Sensationalistic, much? (3, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year ago | (#45202841)

Whats happening is the court is sending an order to image his hard drive, turn that image over to the court (without examining the data on it first), and order the defendant not to wipe his hard drive pending further investigation in the case. Of course the court has no proof that the "hacker" is going to delete the data on his hard drive should he be given warning, but it does have a suspicion that it might.

And he didn't "lose [his] 4th Amendment rights", because the 4th Amendment specifies "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" which is exactly, letter for letter, what has happened (complete with sworn affidavit). This whole thing is a non-story: a plaintiff brought a suit before the court, the court decided to issue a temporary restraining order following due process in order to ensure evidence isn't destroyed. Maybe you might argue the court didn't really have reasonable suspicion, but thats for the defendant's lawyer to argue.

Re:Sensationalistic, much? (4, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | about a year ago | (#45203069)

Maybe you might argue the court didn't really have reasonable suspicion, but thats for the defendant's lawyer to argue.

Well, you see, the defendant's lawyer never had the opportunity to argue because the defendant wasn't just ordered to give the hard drive up but rather was raided by police with no warning. That's kind of the entire problem...

Who's next? (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | about a year ago | (#45202875)

And any biologist has the knowledge to release botulism in a concealed manner.

So call me... (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | about a year ago | (#45202925)

Call me a Polack. ?!?!

Oh, HOLY SHIT... (1)

Shoten (260439) | about a year ago | (#45202957)

Battelle has made a major mistake here. INL's ICS testing labs (and ICS-CERT) require extremely forward-thinking, highly skilled security professionals with a very narrow subset of specialties. Which are exactly the sorts of people to be raging, rippingly pissed off at reading this. They approached me about a position about 2 months ago; oh, if only they approached me tomorrow. I'd be polite about it, but I would also tell them that there was no way I would consider a position with them, if they truly think that researchers are criminals, even though they would hire such. And if they don't think that researchers are criminals, they have no right to treat them as such.

Age old tactics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45202997)

The trouble with law and those who practice it laws are just made up of words with "interesting" dependency graphs. It is too easy to squint your eyes and twist words in a way that invokes support for whatever inclination you happen to be amenable. Laws need to be more specific and careful to avoid this however exactly the opposite is occurring. Lawyers intentionally get this sort of bullshit codified into law so that it becomes impossible for someone not to be in violation of law.

Since you have all the ingredients to make a Molotov cocktail we are going to charge you with possessing bomb making materials. There are numerous youtube videos of LEA interviews where just this sort of twisted logic is constantly invoked.

If they dislike you for any reason (e.g. being Black or Hispanic) your fucked. Settle or die. The natural result of this form of corruption is a country with 5 percent of the worlds population owning a fifth of the worlds prison population.

Miscarriage of justice (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#45203085)

It's not like this is not found in other areas though. For example, "gang" is now a magic word which means criminal. Back in the day, "gang" just meant a bunch of friends... well, not always but sometimes. "Our Gang" was not quite a 'gang' by contemporary definitions. But it strikes me that in the legal sense the implication by a word can actually lead to all sorts of legal and real mayhem. This is why motorcycle clubs are now called clubs. Because to be identified as a gang would mean they lose all sorts of things. 'Hacker' doesn't and shouldn't mean what THEY think it means. The entertainment/media industries have managed to take a good word and made it bad. The [blind] justice system has taken Hollywood's notion of hacker and applied it to people inappropriately. (And why not, they believe just about everything the MPAA/RIAA has to say.)

So now we're on notice. We need a new word. The old word is useless. The word "Hacker" has gone "gay."

The blogspam is a crock of shit. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45203121)

This guy is suspected of stealing a company's proprietary code and planning to release it as open-source. The company asks a judge for a restraining order to shutdown the guy's site and to get a copy of the the guy's hard drives. The judge realizing that if this guy had warning could post the code to the internet anonymously AND erase the data from his hard drives with little effort, provides for no warning for the serving of the orders.
 
In other words, a computer savvy judge, something so many on Slashdot claim to want, understood what could be done and acted to prevent it. Be careful what you wish for, assholes, because you just might get it.

Re:The blogspam is a crock of shit. (1)

jmauro (32523) | about a year ago | (#45203249)

The new company he works for actually released it already. It's been on github [github.com] for the last 7 months. If there was a question of ownership on the code, why it couldn't be figured out from comparing the released version of Visdom to the internal version of Sophia to see if any code was stolen is left up to the reader.

Ability does not imply intent, nor should it (3, Interesting)

n5vb (587569) | about a year ago | (#45203163)

Quoted by the OP from source material:

The Court has struggled over the issue of allowing the copying of the hard drive. This is a serious invasion of privacy and is certainly not a standard remedy, as the discussion of the case law above demonstrates. The tipping point for the Court comes from evidence that the defendants – in their own words – are hackers. By labeling themselves this way, they have essentially announced that they have the necessary computer skills and intent to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their role in that act. (underline added) And concealment likely involves the destruction of evidence on the hard drive of Thuen’s computer. For these reasons, the Court finds this is one of the very rare cases that justifies seizure and copying of the hard drive.

The thing I'm very uncomfortable with is the conflation of "capability" with "intent". There are many things I can do that I don't want to do, because I'm basically an ethical person and I respect other people's rights and property, and if there's one thing I'm touchy as hell about, it's the assumption that people who are able to do things outside what people of average intelligence consider "normal" skills are inherently dangerous and/or criminal if their knowledge, skills, or abilities aren't somehow sanctioned by an "authority" like a higher education institution. I'm very much a hacker in the sense of having fairly extensive self-education and hands-on experience with technology outside of the sanctioned channels. I'm not a "hacker" in the sense in which the court understands the term. (And there's a whole other rant there, in terms of how the word's meaning has been loaded with negative connotations it really shouldn't have.) In this case, the court has taken the word out of the context and applied a meaning to it that I'm sure the original author did not intend, as an excuse to sidestep 4th Amendment protections. That's troubling, to say the least.

saying is not being (1)

themushroom (197365) | about a year ago | (#45203173)

Just like how there are men who say they're awesome in bed but finish and fall asleep in five minutes, or there are plenty of bearded men who call themselves pretty princesses, just because you say you're a hacker doesn't mean you really are.

I called myself a hacker in the mid-1980s when I was on an Apple //e with no modem, simply because I could use a sector editor and had friends with copied software. Had nothing to do with bad intentions or cyber-prowess, pretty much interchangeable with "computer geek" and doesn't mean more than "I am slightly above the local median in comprehension."

Sounds like feds (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45203221)

Sounds like how the US tries to cover up shit like Using Hurricane Katrina to Murder the poor in the gulf.

You guys, we're discussing the wrong part (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45203227)

"We are hackers" is the phrase everyone is focusing on, which has too broad of a range of meanings to convey much of anything. It implies a self-evaluated level of some kind of electronics skills but that's about it.

What about the second part of the sentence where they said "we don't want to stop"? That seems to be the part conveying intent and NOBODY'S talking about it. Why? Oh right, nobody reads the article... In my opinion, the judge misspoke and should have used that as the part citing intent. That, to me, is what they should have gone after. If they committed a crime, and said they don't want to stop, then obviously this is a real sticking point here!

Let's operate at a higher level than the people we're trashing here, at least.

The US of A, the best African Country there is ;) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45203251)

Seriously ? Land of the free ?

timothy timothy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45203309)

Isn't there enough crap going on in the US right now to get legitimately outraged over, than to make sensationalist headlines.
The cryptoseal/lavabit cases are real 4th amendment violations (as well as the countless NSA abuses) - not this.

HACKERS! HACKERS! HACKERS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45203321)

Lol! nobody is hacking, n00bs. u just suck!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>