The Trap Set By the FBI For Half Life 2 Hacker 637
eldavojohn writes "You might remember the tiny news that Half Life 2 source code was leaked in 2003 ... it is the 6th most visited Slashdot story with over one kilocomment. Well, did anything happen to the source of the leak, the German hacker Axel 'Ago' Gembe? Wired is reporting he was offered a job interview so that Valve could get him into the US and bag him for charges. It's not the first time the FBI tried this trick: 'The same Seattle FBI office had successfully used an identical gambit in 2001, when they created a fake startup company called Invita, and lured two known Russian hackers to the US for a job interview, where they were arrested.'"
Old News (Score:5, Informative)
shouldn't be legal (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't care what the guy has done, tricks like this should not be legal.
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wasting money protecting source code after the event. I'm a taxpayer - I don't give a shit about it. If someone releases a game based on it, follow the money. Some guy with some source code - big deal.
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not an issue of protecting the source code -- I think even the FBI is minimally competent enough to realize that cat's out of the bag -- it's an issue of punishing the guy for the computer tresspass etc..
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Interesting)
It depends on where he committed the crime. He's a german citizen commiting a crime in germany (and he was punished for it under german law) then that FBI can GTFO as far as I'm concerned. If they were that bothered they could have applied for extradition rather that using underhand tricks.
No different from the Dimitri Skylarov case, except he was arrested for something that wasn't even a crime in his home country.
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how physical location doesn't matter on the internet right up until a "hacker" does something "heroic", and then suddenly it's all "nyah nyah, jurisdiction".
He committed a crime against a US entity. He was then foolish enough to put himself within US law enforcement. He's now suffering the consequences of his crime and his stupidity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt Germany would have extradited him to the US for this crime since they'd tried him already, but if he goes to the US of his own free will there's no reason he couldn't be arrested and tried again under US law. I
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a hidden assumption in there - actually several. They may be correct, but your point is only valid if they're all correct.
Some (if not all) of those points need to have been checked before spending American TaxPayer's money on this (via the FBI). It's quite plausible that no crime, by American rules, has been committed. It's equally plausible that an alleged crime is not supported by sufficient evidence to succeed with an extradition request under German law.
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:4, Insightful)
What is the difference?
If the computer storing the game bits of code is based in the US, and he attacks it (hacks it), then he committed a crime under US law.
Don't tell me you actually think that people doing malicious hacking shouldn't be appropriately dealt with by the country whose laws they fucked over by hacking.... I mean, all you'd have to do is go to international waters and you could do all you wanted, to any country you wanted, to any server you wanted, and there would be no retribution.
Unless you where going for the point of if he copied it by USB method, he is guilty of criminal trespass as well as computer trespass.
--Toll_Free
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So by your reasoning, you should be able to be imprisoned by the chinese government if you watch (by chinese government deemed) illegal content on a website that's hosted on a server in China. Even though the content of the website is perfectly legal in the country where you are browsing in? No? Didn't think so... This type of entrapment is a slippery slope.
This is exactly how the world works. ANY country can issue an arrest warrant for any person, at any time.
It doesn't MATTER where the person is. It doesn
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, as a matter of fact, that's true. I wish, more people realized that, and stopped doing business with China...
Not that your analogy is valid, really, because prosecutions in China aren't determined by the Law, but mostly by political and/or economic expediency.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The point wasn't whether the act itself was illegal or legal, it was about the question if someone who committed a crime in country A which causes damages in country B, should be tried in country B.
I agree that if this guy broke the law he should be prosecuted. Only by the country where the crime is committed, otherwise you leave loopholes open like the example I gave.
If a party in country B has damages, they can go through the legal system of country A to claim damages. This just feels like some nationa
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Going to Amsterdam to smoke weed isn't illegal for UK citizens. There is very little that you cannot go abroad to do (assuming that it's legal in your country of destination).
I think there are a few crimes that can be prosecuted in the UK even if they were committed in a foreign country (provided that the crime exists in both countries) - I think murder falls into this category (In particular, murder of a spouse while on holiday may well be prosecuted in the UK, particularly if there was no body and the for
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:4, Insightful)
So the lesson here is to never, ever, under any circumstances or for any reason whatsoever, go to either China or the United States. Got it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't tell me you actually think that people doing malicious hacking shouldn't be appropriately dealt with by the country whose laws they fucked over by hacking.... I mean, all you'd have to do is go to international waters and you could do all you wanted, to any country you wanted, to any server you wanted, and there would be no retribution.
In the 1700s, there were men (and a few women) who would do just that(except the server part)...they were called pirates. Many operated in the Caribbean, some at the Barbary Coast...some elsewhere. Generally the navy of whomever they offended would go out and shoot them to stop them.
The problem for the pirates was that while they could attack anyone...they pretty much were at the mercy of any country they attacked that decided to fight back. The difference with an internet hacker is that they sit nice an
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the difference?
If the computer storing the game bits of code is based in the US, and he attacks it (hacks it), then he committed a crime under US law.
Do you really mean that Chinese people do not commit a crime by talking about "taboo topics" as long as they do that on US-based Blogspot?
The guy has undergone a trial in Germany already, and has been condemned already. What makes it fair for him to be charged twice for the same crime?
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Informative)
Entrapment is when the authorities cause you to commit a crime (that you wouldn't otherwise) which is not the case here since the crime was already committed.
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Informative)
Entrapment is tricking someone into committing a crime. This is more like when the police send out raffle prize announcements to everyone with outstanding warrants and arresting them when they show up.
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Insightful)
Wasting money protecting source code after the event.
Any time the police arrests a criminal, it is by definition after the event. Sometimes the damage can be undone, as in theft. Sometimes it cannot, as in murder. We still want criminals punished to deter others.
If you truly don't want source code leaks punished because it's a waste of your tax dollars, you're welcome to lobby to change the law. However, I'm sure other tax payers, such as corporations that own source code, would lobby to keep it.
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I'm sure other tax payers, such as corporations that own source code, would lobby to keep it.
Waitaminute. It's not being a taxpayer that gives someone a stake in the government - it's being a citizen, and having a vote. That means that a lifelong welfare recipient and a survivalist hermit, neither of whom pay a dollar of tax in their lives, have a representative in Washington who is supposed to look out for their interests and listen to their concerns. A corporation, regardless of how much tax it pays, is not supposed to have such representation.
Sorry for jumping on you here, but I think that the way your post is expressed - implying that a corporate taxpayer deserves representation - is a dangerous subversion of democracy.
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry for jumping on you here, but I think that the way your post is expressed - implying that a corporate taxpayer deserves representation - is a dangerous subversion of democracy.
It's a dangerous subversion of democracy, but it's also the real situation in the US(1). The CEO of Chrysler has as much voting power of a single welfare recipient. To whom do you think elected officials listen?
Besides, while corporations don't have votes, they do have employees. I'd be reluctant to vote for a candidate whose policies will hurt IBM. When your employer suffers, you usually suffer too.
(1) Arguably, it's also the system working as designed. Many of thhe founding fathers were scared of democracy, and much preferred an aristocratic republic on the Roman model.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People don't suddenly become evil the day they employ someone else.
However, a company with, say, 10,000 employees generally seems to have a *lot* more political power than 10,000 individual citizens. Whilst the company is being benevolent this isn't a big problem, but large organisations rarely stay that way - eventually they tend to use that political power to further their own interests at the expense of the larger population.
This isn't about "being evil", it's about the fact that most people and organisations value their own interests above those of others, so giving t
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:4, Informative)
If you want to split hairs the crime of "conspiracy to commit a crime" has already happened, but it does not, by itself, cause any damage.
That's the reason it's a separate crime ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime) [wikipedia.org] ) - precisely because the planned crime, the one that would have hurt somebody, did not occur yet.
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, as a taxpayer, I'm really upset too when the police waste money trying to arrest a murderer after the event. I mean, the victim's already dead, so they're wasting money trying to protect him. If someone releases a book about the murder, then follow the money. Otherwise, big deal.
In case the previous paragraph didn't drip enough sarcasm in your direction, let's try this another way. It's the job of the police to investigate crimes that have occurred and to arrest those that they have reasonable grounds to believe are guilty. In this case, police have reasonable grounds to arrest him on suspicion of having committed a crime (some variant of breaking into a computer). What does it matter how much or how little he profited from the crime? That's for the judge to take into account, not the police.
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:4, Insightful)
That's for the judge to take into account, not the police.
And that's for the judge to take into account during sentencing, not during the guilt phase of a trial.
--Toll_Free
So if Valve doesn't care if your TV is stolen (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how so many Slashdotters are absolutists about following the law - until someone they disagree with is protected by it.
Don't let your dogma run over your karma.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wasting money protecting source code after the event
In the US practically all law enforcement is after the event. Even if the police are standing right there, the criminals actually have to actually start doing whatever or seriously look like they're about to. There's almost no proactive arrests. Do you really want the FBI/cops to arrest people BEFORE they commit crimes? There was a silly Tom Cruise movie with this premise that you might find mildly amusing, but not for normal theft and whatnot
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not?
Because it bypasses protections established by extradition treaties (or lack thereof). How would you like to be tricked into visiting Iran, and then be prosecuted for posting some offensive comment on slashdot?
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Insightful)
By the way, this does happen. 2/3rds of the time you hear about some American "kidnapped" by Iran, it turns out there's some legal basis for it - in Iran, of course. (e.g. "Not without my daughter" [wikipedia.org] and Haleh Esfandiari [msn.com]. Does that mean Iran is right? Nah, it means be careful where you go.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So if an Iranian company invited you to come work for them, you'd just go and expect the Iranian government to be able to do nothing?
Extradition treaties protect people who choose not to go to other countries, they don't really protect you if you decide that you are going to do the work for them and fly yourself there or let them fly you there. There are treaties and conventions that ensure that you have consular aid from your country, but if you went on your own, there's not much your country can do legal
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:4, Insightful)
replace Iran with UK, because of that violent pornography you watch!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The UK doesn't have any laws against you watching violent porn outside the country.
Now, if you ripped off a major UK company you might want to think twice about going there.
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Insightful)
Except it's not fraud, and it's not illegal. What the government did, arresting a foreign criminal who committed a crime in the USA, is perfectly legal. How they got him to enter into the USA, by setting up a fake job interview, is also perfectly legal. I can set up fake job interviews with as many people as I want. So can the feds. It's not against the law.
But what most people seem to be missing is the sheer stupidity of the criminal. If a company I had hacked into, stolen source code from, and embarrassed publicly suddenly invited me to their corporate HQ in a foreign country, I would be a weee bit suspcious.
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:4, Insightful)
I can set up fake job interviews with as many people as I want. So can the feds. It's not against the law.
Are you sure? I can't find anything to confirm this but I always thought advertising or offering employment when you actually have no intention to employ anyone was at least a civil offence, if not actually criminal.
On the other hand, I think I've seen pranks and the like that involved fake job interviews, so it may well be perfectly legal. I don't think it should be though. At the very least advertising a non-existent job should be punishable under "false advertising" laws.
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Insightful)
At the very least advertising a non-existent job should be punishable under "false advertising" laws.
False advertising laws are in place to protect consumers from abuse. Advertising a job interview is not the same as advertising a product. It's perfectly legal for me to invite as many people as I want to my office for an interview -- and no job need exist for me to do that. I can interview them all, get all their resumes, and never follow up with a single one of them. It's not illegal, nor should it be. After all, if it were illegal, why would it be illegal? Have I deprived anyone of life, liberty, or property? I have not. If people came and wasted their time, they did so voluntarily.
You need to get out of this mindset that something "ought to be illegal" just because you don't like it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if it were illegal, the rules for dealing with wanted criminals are different than the rules for common citizens. For one thing, the police are allowed to arrest and lock up wanted criminals with no further provocation.
There's always the classic police scam where they mail a prize notice ("You have won a new boat!") to suspects' last known address. Then they arrest everyone who comes through the front door. Nabs a lot of criminals. This was even parodied on The Simpsons, but has a basis in reality.
It w
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Funny)
Wont's someone please think of the criminals?
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I think that's true. They should shoot out the tires, and if they can't do that, shoot out the driver. To go 120 mph to catch up to someone going 80 in a 70 to give them a ticket is absurd. If it's safe for them to go that fast, how can it be unsafe for the person only going 10 over the limit?
Or to setup a drug bust using real drugs that stupid criminals buy off them?
Which part should I object to, the entrapment or the using real drugs when they went and bothered to make it illegal to sell flour, or should I object to the fact that selling flour is illegal if the person believes it to be drugs?
As long as it isn't entrapment and they respect civil rights there is no harm done.
I assert that fraud in enforcement of the law is a violation of civil rights. Maybe not the protected civil rights observed in the US, but I believe it to be a right none the less.
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:4, Insightful)
So it shouldn't be legal for the gov't (city or state cop) to exceed the speed limit in order to catch a criminal flying down the highway at 100mph?
Personally, I think that's true. They should shoot out the tires, and if they can't do that, shoot out the driver. To go 120 mph to catch up to someone going 80 in a 70 to give them a ticket is absurd. If it's safe for them to go that fast, how can it be unsafe for the person only going 10 over the limit?
(a) The police car is running sirens and lights warning other drivers that they need to take special care because the vehicle is exceeding the normal limits. All too frequently that is NOT the case, which is despicable and people frequently are killed because of it.
(b) The driver of the vehicle is well trained (and current) in high speed defensive driving.
As long as those two requirements are satisfied, then I believe it is valid for police and others with legitimate reason to speed. Certainly shooting at the tires and the driver brings significant risks which can endanger other people present. Also, shooting the driver should almost never be an option - extra-judicial killings are a huge opportunity for civil rights violations.
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is not borderline entrapment.
Entrapment in this sense is defined as [princeton.edu]: a defense that claims the defendant would not have broken the law if not tricked into doing it by law enforcement officials
This guy had *already broken the law*, he did not break any laws by going to a fake job interview. He just wasn't very smart.
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Funny)
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Funny)
"A boat's a boat, but the mystery box could be anything.
It could even be a boat!"
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Interesting)
The judges in the small county I used to work in (Charles County, MD) were notoriously tough on cocaine dealers. The neighboring jurisdiction was so overwhemled with drugs that drug dealers in that county were typically given much lighter sentences. The disparity was so great that smart dealers refused to deal in Charles County. Instead, they would arrange deals next to the border without actually ever crossing into Charles Co.
So when the Charles County Sheriff's Office wanted to mount a major drug sting, they moved the "Welcome to Charles County" sign back a hundred feet or so, and would arrange deals just across the border. We put away a lot of bad people for a long time. Brilliant.
Um... Yeah. I have no problem with this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dealing drugs is different from using them. Drug dealing is often associated with other crimes: robbery, assault, murder, etc. While I agree with you that choosing to sell drugs is not necessarily indicative of a bad person in itself, and I preemptively agree with you that a lot of that ancillary crime is caused by the very fact that drug dealing is illegal, the fact that the dealer is willing to accept the circumstan
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are exactly right.
My X wife thought marijuana was the SCOURGE of the world, because of her parents and DARE.
Then she realized she married someone that dallied in Marijuana use (medically and socially at times) and was FLOORED.
She almost divorced me over it, then realized, it didn't change the person she married, nor was it as bad as she thought.
Then she turned her angst towards DARE and her parents for lying ot her for so long.
BUT, the finality is this: She didn't have a problem with me using Marijuana
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen big hard men reduced to quivering crying babies after thinking they could handle LSD.
I'm not saying that if you have the right attitude you won't freak, but when you freak (and everybody does sooner or later) you can handle it. I had to get someone to turn the stereo off once before the song reached a certain line, because I was so immersed that I felt that hearing the line in question was going to kill me. (Pink Floyd - Comfortably Numb).
Remember in the Matrix, Neo asked "if you die inside the Matrix, you die in real life too ?", Morpheus said "The body cannot live without the mind". This is quite possible. If I had been taking acid when the Matrix came out, I would probably never had taken as much as I did. As it happened, I stopped doing LSD a good decade before that film.
Pro-tip : never trip by yourself, always share the experience with a friend (who is in the same state). Know when to say no. If you have even the slightest fear about doing it - don't do it. That fear is the seed of a Bad Trip. It IS pitch black, and you ARE likely to be eaten by a Grue.
Beginners tip : just don't. But if you do, get as far away from civilisation as you can before you do it, and enjoy the stars or something. Avoid natural hazards (cliffs, ravines, rivers) and keep your clothes on ! Also, read the pro-tip.
My final word here is just to stress that hard drug taking is not like a funfair ride. You can't just get off the ride when you feel like it, and it will change you and your life, immediately and for ever more, even after just one trip. You will never be the same person ever again. None of what I just said is related to addiction, just the fallout from the experience. So, ask yourself - Do I feel lucky ?
Disclaimer : I am not a doctor, I am not your doctor. I post here to redress the imbalance of information between people who think drugs are cool and spout off bullshit, and those who have actually been down that road and survived (just). I will never and have never encouraged anybody to take drugs.
Coca Farmers (Score:3, Interesting)
Coca tea is natural and healthful, containing a tiny, tiny amount of cocaine. The original Coca-Cola was coca tea, cola, sugar, and carbonation. (The modern version is decocainized - similar to decaffeinating.) It is only because people refine the cocaine into a pure form that it becomes dangerously addictive. And then some criminally selfish people sell the cocaine on the street to extract money from people now controlled by the chemical.
IMO, they should decriminalize all "natural" drugs, from peyote to
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:4, Informative)
Sure they did.
Except crack was called freebasing. Ask Ricky Prior about basing coke.
And meth was called Marching Powder, Anti-Depressants and asthma medicine.
So, parent is right.
--Toll_Free
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, MDMA was given to people as a mood elevator in the 70s and 80s.
MDMA is a methamphetamine derived chemical. There is (if memory serves me well enough) either 2 or 3 differences in the chain.
They also DID prescribe methamphetamine as a mood elevator, as well as a brochiodilator.
Methamphetamine was given to our troops in Viet Nam. A good friend of mine actually has a bottle of it (the empty bottle, the contents where LONG ago consumed). His argument for having it is: I'm a methamphetamine addict. I had never touched it, nor heard of it, until Viet Nam. My government gave me pretty much all I wanted then. So, they gave me the FUCKING habit. Should I ever be arrested, this is a DAMNING piece of evidence. I don't think he would do very well, but it still serves as evidence of Methamphetamine ABuse from our government in the 60s / 70s.
Matter of fact, Methamphetamine is STILL legally prescribed in the United States. It's used for SEVERE obesity as well as narcolepsy. VERY few people get it for ADD/HD as well.
Cocaine? Yup, we have that as well. Most opthamology shops set up for surgery (not your basic eyeglasses plus type place, or julios lasic clinic, but REAL eye surgeons), they get Cocaine. It's one of, if not the only anesthetic used IN the eyeball.
Coca Cola ALSO STILL uses Coca in their drink. The Coca BASE (which is cocaine, after refining) is whisked away for no apparent reason (I'd say, more than likely, for the production of legal cocaine, for eye dox, but I'm sure they don't say for security reasons) is brought to the states. Matter of fact, Coca Cola Bottling is the BIGGEST single purchaser of Coca in the world.
Care to anonymously talk about this some more? I tend to know a bit more than the average idiot about drugs, drug use, pharmacology, and the such. Growing up in one of the largest methamphetamine production towns in the world during the 80s kinda does that for ya.
--Toll_Free
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a problem the same way I have a problem with someone stealing for booze. or getting drunk and driving over someone, or going on a murderous rampage while drunk. All of which happen far more often then the crackhead equivalents.
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The drugs used by three perps affected nobody but themselves..."
Exactly right.
The bad driving/DUI, theft and robbery on the other hand did. Coincidentally they are illegal in their own right even if we don't punish people enough for them :(
Not to mention in 2 of the 3 you don't even say they were on drugs, only that they wanted money. Not sure how you figure they wouldn't do the same for cigarettes, booze, food, or a new leather coat. They work for those and rob people for drug money i suppose .....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a case of entrapment because the person was not induced to commit an offense. He was induced to come to the country after the offense was committed.
A good example of entrapment would be if the FBI tricked him in to coming in the country and then arrested him for coming in to the country illegally (invalid visa or some such).
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:5, Interesting)
He DIDN'T commit the crime! RTFA!!!
He told others that he got into valve, said others figured out how he did it and stole the code.
Re:shouldn't be legal (Score:4, Insightful)
I suggest you read the article, a little more carefully. He broke into Valve's network, but he claims he didn't actually steal the source, he just bragged about what he did, including details, on IRC and happened to be overheard.
Since you like analogies, try this one:
I figure out that the lock on your back door is crappy so I break it and sneak in. I keep sneaking in for six months, because I like watching you and your wife have sex. I brag about the whole thing to a bunch of my friends, who also start sneaking into your house (I told them how) and they film you having sex with your wife and release it on the Internet.
Damage is done, I should get off, right?
(Note to young slashdotters - replace "having sex with your wife" to something suitably embarrassing that you wouldn't want plastered all over the Internet. Use your imagination.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm also not sure how you think law enforcement should work if officers must be honest in pursuing criminals. Asking people if they're a cop before you deal with them would be hugely effective
Charged in Germany anyway (Score:5, Informative)
The article mentions that this trap failed. Apparently he suspected something.
Anyway, Gembe was sentenced to probation in Germany for the breach and leak. Interesting that the FBI apparently took this so much more seriously than the German courts.
Re:Charged in Germany anyway (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, just before 09/11, the FBI retasked most of their anti-terror team to work on copyright. Says something about their priorities. Or rather, the priorities of those in charge of their budget.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I recall correctly, the German authorities got wind of what the feds were going to do and took the hacker into custody instead.
myg0t (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are not cheaters per se. Cheating is their modus operandi. They are griefers. Their goal is to get you as mad as possible. If they can empty out a server, they are happy. If they can make you angry, they have succeeded in their goals.
strike
Note to self (Score:5, Funny)
Do not go somewhere where I'm wanted. Stay in the countries where there are NO warrants for my arrests.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In this job market (Score:5, Funny)
that's just cruel.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apart from the HL2 Source Code (Score:5, Insightful)
Apart from the HL2 source code being realease into the wild (which I agree was a big thing), the stuff this guy did to get the source code is probably a bigger deal. He compromised Valve's machines. He broke into their network. He installed keyloggers. He hijacked email accounts. He (maybe) initiated DoS attacks on their servers. Even if he did not steal and release the HL2 source code (trade secrets) what he did was pretty damn wrong... and illegal in most places of the world. The FBI, in my opinion, has every right to chase this guy (no, I do not live in the US). Chase the guy, catch him and let him rot in jail. Summary: the HL2 source code release, at this point in time, is not the big deal; it's all the other laws he broke.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Repeat after me, virtual crime is virtual not real.
The guy did not commit a fscking "virtual crime". The crime was real. No matter what way you choose to spin it, the result is the same: the crime was a crime, a REAL crime, and that is that. The guy's crimes are not limited to the Valve/HL2 source episode either, but I do not want to get offtopic.
If you think that what he did was a "virtual crime", then please explain to me how it was virtual and not real. The only slippery slope, in my mind, is your distorted view of reality. How is stealing someone elses
Valve should give him a medal (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, seriously.
Anybody remember that incident? Gave valve a golden excuse for delaying HL2.
It happened 6 weeks or so for the announced release data. And magically, after the leak they needed time to fix "security issues". For more than a fucking year. Because we all believe that the game really was finished at that point..
Points to consider (Score:3, Interesting)
On the surface this is a story about somebody that did something he shouldn't have and is punished for it, but I think there are several more important issues here that have nothing to do with the crime itself as such.
When a person is physcially in one country and commits an offence on a system in another country, who has jurisdiction? I probably lean most to the view that is the country where the offended system is; but there is a trend towards more delocalised systems - as evidenced by the question of where eg. Amazon or Google should pay their taxes. If it isn't clear for your payment of taxes, I can't see that it is any clearer for criminal jurisdiction; after all the criteria for legal proofs are stricter in the criminal court.
There is also the question of "symmetry" (the right word escapes me at the moment) - when the US feels somebody has committed a crime within their jurisdiction based on the above principle, shouldn't the principle apply the other way? The US wants the world to deliver the people they say are criminals to the US penal system, but it is very hard to get it to work the other way. Even UK, the "special ally", finds it hard to get a US citizen extradited - and even their own citizens, sometimes.
And then there is the ethics of the situation - is it acceptable to commit a crime, even a very small one, to catch a criminal? The "small crime" in this case is the fraudulent advertising of a non-existent job, it seems. The law - and certainly criminal law - is supposed to be the practical expression of our fundamental, ethical principles; it is illegal to steal, kill, swindle etc because everybody agrees that it is morally wrong, in essence. And as they say, two wrongs don't make a right; if you commit crimes to fight crime, you have tainted yourself and the whole system of justice - and where does the dividing line go? Why is it OK to commit fraud to catch a fairly insignificant hacker, but it isn't OK to take bribes? To my view you are either a criminal or not; and if you commit crimes, you are a criminal.
As far as I know this kind of thing is not accepted in any other Western country; the are not allowed to use even "mild deception", like a knowingly letting a suspect believe something that isn't true, if it is likely to influence their defence. Which is why you read them their rights when they are arrested, BTW.
Re:Points to consider (Score:4, Interesting)
This is what extradition treaties are for, to work out details like this (and BTW, if you represent a nation and are working on an extradition treaty with the US, make sure you specifically forbid the US from engaging in "extraordinary rendition", and specify that any violations shall be remedied by, in the least, repatriating the "rendered" suspect. It should go without saying but it doesn't)
However, there's no issue like that in this case. If someone in the US who has committed a crime in the UK travels there, the UK can arrest and try him and it's all perfectly legal regardless of whether the crime was extraditable or not.
Eh? There's a country where the cops can't lie, at all, to suspects? Do you have any references to that?
In the US they can and do lie about almost anything; there's a few exceptions, like they can't have a prosecutor pretend to be a public defender (which has shown up on TV police procedurals, but I don't know if they've tried it in real life), and they can't threaten extrajudicial punishment to obtain a confession (which alas happens all the time, and the cops just deny it).
Wait! Wait! (Score:3, Funny)
Is the position still open?
Re:Kilocomment? (Score:5, Funny)
depends ...
Is a kilocomment 1000 or 1024 comments ?!?
If i am supposed to slow down...about telling me how slow
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1000, the story received 1003 comments.
Re:Kilocomment? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Kilocomment? (Score:5, Informative)
A kibicomment is 1024 comments.
Re:Kilocomment? (Score:5, Funny)
There's a difference between a Kilobyte(1000) and a Kibibyte. (1024)
The Kibibyte was coined to distinguish the former from the latter.
For more information, please refer to this chart: http://xkcd.com/394/
Re:Kilocomment? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I don't understand is why we allowed some asshole RAM and HDD manufacturers to steal our word?
Speaking as someone who grew up learning that "kilo-" means 1000, what I don't understand why we allowed some asshole CS people to steal our prefix?
Re:Kilocomment? (Score:5, Funny)
Speaking as someone who grew up learning that "kilo-" means 1000, what I don't understand why we allowed some asshole CS people to steal our prefix?
Because base-10 is soooo 1900s. Get with the program.
--
One-one was a race horse, One-two was one too.
One-one won one race, One-two won one two.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
How does one measure a "shitload" as Tb? (Score:3, Funny)
So is that 1024 or 1000 gigaturds? And do we add this to the list along with "Libraries of Congress" and "rods to the hogshead"?
Hmm, some places I've worked, this analogy is perfectly fitting for the "data" being passed around.
So 8 dingles makes 1 turd, ...
Cheers,
Re:Kilocomment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just HDD manufacturers. When you buy an 8GB RAM stick you get 8,589,934,592 bytes of RAM, just like you should. When you buy an 8GB hard drive, you only get 8,000,000,000 bytes of HDD space.
!#@%! Metric (Score:5, Funny)
An infinite number (Score:3, Funny)
I can use information theory to prove that the answer is infinity...
Information content of library of congress: I(lib) = 1 bazillion bits.
Information content of one kilocomment: I(1kc) = 0 bits.
kilocomments in a Library of Congress = I(lib)/I(1kc) = 1 bazillion / 0 = infinity.
QED
Re:What happens when other countries do that too ? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are wanted for a crime in some country, you should avoid:
1) Going to that country
2) Going to countries with extradition agreements with that country
If you are dumb enough to go to the country, you deserve to be arrested.
How would I feel if someone tricked dumb American criminals into getting arrested? Pretty good. We could use less criminals on the streets. Feel free.
This isn't exactly a civil rights issue.
Re:What happens when other countries do that too ? (Score:4, Funny)
will you arrogant americans stomach your citizens being arrested in set traps worldwide ?
A friend of mine is set to be drafted immediately into their military if he ever sets foot in Turkey, since he was born in a Turkish hospital. That said, do you think he's dumb enough to accept a job interview for a Turkish company? It doesn't matter how delicious it sounds, he's not biting.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What happens when other countries do that too ? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can say this because I hold citizenship in three countries. And have lived in all three would rather tangle with the american law enforcement then the other two.
When Michael Fay was caned in Singapore for vandalism, the majority of the USA cheered, because he acted like an ass in another country, and he deserved what he got.
I had the misfortune of meeting the prick years later, and he almost got caned again with a pool cue.
But in the US there is a saying. IF you can't do the time, do'nt do the crime.
Nothing arrogant about the way they were caught.
Re:a fun bit of trivia (Score:4, Informative)
Except according to this wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] it's called src/source because it was forked of the GoldSrc engine [wikipedia.org] and they just shorten the name of the new dir to Src.
Your story seemed to unlikely that I just had to check it up somewhat.
Re:a fun bit of trivia (Score:5, Informative)
When we were getting very close to releasing Half-Life 1 (less than a week or so), we found there were already some projects that we needed to start working on, but we couldn't risk checking in code to the shipping version of the game. At that point we forked off the code in VSS to be both $/Goldsrc and /$Src. Over the next few years, we used these terms internally as "Goldsource" and "Source". At least initially, the Goldsrc branch of code referred to the codebase that was currently released, and Src referred to the next set of more risky technology that we were working on. When it came down to show Half-Life 2 for the first time at E3, it was part of our internal communication to refer to the "Source" engine vs. the "Goldsource" engine, and the name stuck.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wow. A bunch of e-mails and a 40 minute phone call... costing billions. I didn't realize it was so expensive to call Germany! They should have just flown there instead. Such fiscal irresponsibility!