I got the final point of this all: /!\ 100% true statement /!\
GO TO JAIL TO AVOID PUBLIC
Cluster #[[ mutiny ]] possibly emitted, @Time [[ 04/05/2010 02:09 ]]
The Following #String
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Way to over stretch what he was talking about. Stop
[1] Releasing tools to the public COULD help you stay out of jail but isn't
enough on it's own (I never claimed it was BTW)
[2] Gonzales is a rat that would turn on what was at least reported to be
his best friend
I've never met Stephen either online or IRL but from what I've read he
sounds like
The security industry could really benefit from more of Stephen's
contributions
Allow me to clarify. Perhaps the INDUSTRY wouldn't benefit, but the general
public which the security industry is supposed to be looking out for would.
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:47 AM, J Roger
Cluster #[[ J Roger ]] possibly emitted, @Time [[ 03/05/2010 19:29 ]]
If the tool was released publicly, and not just to Mr. Gonzales, would
the prosecution be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt[ ... ] Releasing
the tool publicly could help the
defense argue the point that he
Cluster #[[ J Roger ]] possibly emitted, @Time [[
03/05/2010 22:09 ]] The Following #String **
There were excerpts in the Wired article, and there are more in the
court record
One has to begin wondering:
A) Why did Gonzales
PsychoBilly wrote:
The_UT went to jail because his Gonzales m8 kindly supplied irc logs
A *long* time ago I found a buffer overflow issue with a MAC web server
reported to devs but no takeup. With only a few hundred web requests I
could take down a web server. Noddy stuff today but in those
The_UT went to jail because his Gonzales m8 kindly supplied irc logs of their
chats to the fed // not for coding a tool.
The jury recused the not knowing defense strategy on that base.
[[ J Roger ]] possibly emitted, @Time [[ 28/04/2010 00:48 ]] The
Following #String
jail.
According
How about not writing a hacking tool in the first place that you know
will be used to rip other people off?? Wow...what a concept...OF
COURSE he knew the code he was writing was going to be used to rip
people off.
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in
Yeah, I agree! While at it, factories should start producing blunt knives!
And what with the flammable deodorants? They should be made illegal!!
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Ed Carp e...@pobox.com wrote:
How about not writing a hacking tool in the first place that you know
will be used to
Oh, stop it. If you give your buddy a knife, knowing they're going to
go out and stab someone with it, you're going to jail, too. Stop
playing the fool.
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter:
No, I'm being damn realistic. If it weren't me providing a knife to my
buddy it would be someone else, or some kitchen drawer.
Also, why do I go to jail, not the shop owner that sold me the knife? Or the
factory owner?
It's this guy that should be liable to the crime, not the provider.
On Mon,
Ed Carp:
How about not writing a hacking tool in the first place that you know
will be used to rip other people off?? Wow...what a concept...OF
COURSE he knew the code he was writing was going to be used to rip
people off.
How about closing mailing lists like the one you posted to?
It's important to create a thriving market for these utilities, and as part
of the internet community to foster their development.
The 'malicious code' - profit ecosystem is paramount to maintaining order
between corporate, governmental and public interests.
lol.
-Travis
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at
So Mr. Watt got 2 years simply because he was aware of the ongoing crimes and
did not report them to the authorities?
No. What he did was the same thing as someone supplying burglar tools
to someone, knowing that they're going to break into someone's house,
then partying with them afterwards
Which is why this analogy is flawed.
-Travis
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Marsh Ray ma...@extendedsubset.com wrote:
If your knife is found in a dead body, you've going to have some
explaining to do.
If it turns out that you're a restaurant supply business that sells 3000
of that model
In the United States the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the
defense. Stephen was innocent until proven guilty.
I'm suggesting Stephen could have released his tool to the public so anyone
authorized to audit cardholder data environments could have used it.
What he did was the same
I can see that you have no experience with the legal system other than
what you've seen on TV (which is, to say, none at all). If you read
the IRC logs presented by the prosecution, it is pretty clear what the
motive was. Your release it to the public and you have no liability
argument will land
On 5/3/2010 12:29 PM, J Roger wrote:
If the tool was released publicly, how much more difficult would it have
been for the prosecution to prove that you knew the tool was intended to be
used for a particular illegal purpose in a specific case and you went out of
your way to help?
Perhaps
I can see that you have no experience with the legal system other than
what you've seen on TV (which is, to say, none at all).
I know this is the Internet but you don't need to be quite so rude. Perhaps
I just haven't been arrested (caught) as many times as you have.
If you read
the IRC
I once logged a guy on IRC who said he was going to packet me off the face
of the tubes.
So I sent my Mirc logs to the FBI when i lost my AOL connection.
He went to jail forever.
-Travis
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:56 PM, J Roger securityho...@gmail.com wrote:
I can see that you have no
There were excerpts in the Wired article, and there are more in the
court record - I'll see if I can find the link in my browser history.
Quite interesting reading, actually...
On 5/3/10, J Roger securityho...@gmail.com wrote:
I can see that you have no experience with the legal system other
Which is why the creators of Wireshark has long been prosecuted and landed
in jail for 30 years
Oh wait, they weren't?
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Ed Carp e...@pobox.com wrote:
I can see that you have no experience with the legal system other than
what you've seen on TV (which is, to
There were excerpts in the Wired article, and there are more in the
court record
One has to begin wondering:
A) Why did Gonzales keep logs of incriminating evidence against himself and
his friends in the first place?
B) What motivation did Gonzales have for rolling over on Stephen like that?
On Mon, 03 May 2010 13:09:43 PDT, J Roger said:
A) Why did Gonzales keep logs of incriminating evidence against himself and
his friends in the first place?
Probably because of...
C) Another Wired article states that Gonzales was an informer paid an annual
salary by the Secret Service.
The
From what I gather, the Secret Service were paying Gonzales to inform on
people associated with the Shadow Crew and knew nothing about his TJX
endeavors at the time. It would not have been in Gonzales' interest to log
and inform on anything related to his side activities
JRoger
On Mon, May 3,
On Mon, 03 May 2010 13:59:45 PDT, J Roger said:
From what I gather, the Secret Service were paying Gonzales to inform on
people associated with the Shadow Crew and knew nothing about his TJX
endeavors at the time. It would not have been in Gonzales' interest to log
and inform on anything
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Way to over stretch what he was talking about. Stop trying to ban
shit, you're not solving any problems. Didn't we already do the
blacklist thing a hundred thousand times?
Ed Carp wrote:
Oh, stop it. If you give your buddy a knife, knowing
That might work if you went through some sort of official channels
with a bill of sale and so forth. Claiming that you sold it to some
guy on irc after a paypal payment cleared your account probably
wouldn't be much of a defense in court.
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:05 PM, T Biehn
But he was a verified paypal buyer, your honor.
lols.
-Travis
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Stephen Mullins
steve.mullins.w...@gmail.com wrote:
That might work if you went through some sort of official channels
with a bill of sale and so forth. Claiming that you sold it to some
guy on
An important lesson from childhood, sharing, could help keep you out of
jail.
According to the following (dated) Wired article,
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/stephen-watt/ Stephen Watt got
screwed because he supplied his friend with a software tool he wrote and his
friend used it to
30 matches
Mail list logo
